The most common reason given for not feeding a dog a raw diet (meat-based feeding would be a better name) is the convenience of dry foods. No need to calculate, no need to think, and it’s enough to just pour food into a bowl.
Sometimes it’s not just laziness to do about three multiplications that raw feeding requires, but uncertainty. People are afraid to switch their dog to a raw meat-based diet because they fear deficiencies. And fearing deficiencies is a euphemism for one’s ignorance and a complete lack of self-confidence.
Since dry foods are complete meals, it’s guaranteed that the dog always gets everything it needs. In that case, dry foods provide the owner with:
- the freedom from taking responsibility for their actions
- a complete meal for the dog
- cheap logistics without the need for freezing and cold chains
- an easy and simple way to achieve all of the above
Despite this, there are more inquiries and considerations about dry foods than their market share would suggest. Which food is suitable and which is not? Why does the dog show signs of deficiency? Why does the dog gain or lose weight? Is the food purchased based on the dog’s color, size, breed, activity, or age? Or in the worst case, what disease-specific food can be bought?
Perhaps dry foods aren’t as easy as they seem. Except maybe in the simplicity of dosing: pour into a bowl and give to the dog. Well, even that aspect raises questions; should it be soaked, should it be fed from the floor or a surface, can the feeding recommendations be trusted…
I know some of the mentioned problems also concern meat feeding. But that’s the crux of the matter. If one finds something unrelated to the feeding method difficult specifically in meat feeding, then it’s just as much a question mark in dry foods. Conversely, a problem in dry foods might also arise when a dog is switched to raw feeding, and nothing gets easier.
Irresponsible Responsibility
Responsibility is a difficult thing in many ways. I make a living providing dietary advice for dogs, both healthy and sick tail-waggers. I am responsible for what I do. Part of the responsibility is legal, but a considerably larger part is moral.
For some strange reason, my responsibility is questioned much more often than the responsibility of a veterinarian who diagnoses allergies with a blood test and then sells a bag of food to the client.
Remarkably rarely is the responsibility of dog food companies – both manufacturers and sellers – questioned, especially concerning the health claims (often illegal) attached to foods.
The owner is responsible for their animal. For absolutely everything done to it and given to it. People don’t like comparing a dog to a possession, but it’s exactly the same as with a car.
When a car breaks down, the responsibility for fixing it lies with the repair shop. For me, responsibility means fixing what I can, and when my expertise ends (earlier with cars than with dogs), I must understand to seek help myself.
The repair shop’s responsibility is evident when they don’t invent a problem with the fuel injection when the issue is a clogged filter. Or they don’t replace the entire front suspension just because a tire is worn on one side. Responsibility also means not selling me a bulk part as a branded product with a massive markup.
It’s a more complex issue when I’m offered special oil or a special additive to reduce fuel consumption. Business is business, and as a buyer, I also have my responsibility to understand at least the basics of what’s being sold to me.
Here, too, we encounter the seller’s responsibility. When a product or matter is such that its expertise and understanding are not part of the basic education of someone who has passed primary school, the seller’s responsibility multiplies. Especially when selling health – or in this case: longer engine life for less money and better performance.
Do the basics of dog feeding belong to the required basic knowledge of a pet owner? Certainly, they do, and that’s why vegan dogs receive so little understanding. Or if I gave horses only straw because it looks just like hay, I wouldn’t be saved from accusations just because I didn’t know – and didn’t find out!
However, dog nutrition is no longer part of basic skills. When food is sold claiming it’s sufficient for a dog as is, it must be so. The owner is not expected to know what such a claim entails or to find out independently.
The responsibility then lies with the manufacturer AND the seller – where the store actively wants to forget its role. But since it’s known that when money and responsibility collide, responsibility loses. That’s why moral responsibility alone is rarely trusted, and there are clear legal sanctions for shirking responsibility.
The owner’s responsibility in more complex matters is always consequential. The seller is responsible for selling food that meets the sales claims. The owner is responsible for changing the diet and seeking help for the dog if the food is not suitable. Only later is it determined whether the problems were due to the food, the dog, or the owner – yes, all three options are possible, and despite misleading advertising, dry foods are not categorically bad.
All this means that a dog owner must learn more about dog care than just the dog’s name, including the basics of nutrition. Learning new things and finding out information is part of any hobby. If you want consumer goods, buy cheap imported clothes. You can’t place all responsibility for failures on dry foods, nor for successes.
Dry foods do not remove or reduce the owner’s responsibility for feeding the dog; in fact, due to the general unreliability and fragmentation of the industry, the owner’s responsibility increases.
The less admired fact, however, is that dry foods are the owner’s way of outsourcing dog feeding to an entity that deals in bulk matters. If it works, then fine. If not, you still can’t escape your own responsibility.
Complete Nutrition for a Limited Group
All complete foods are legally required to meet a dog’s basic nutritional needs with a serving size of X. What basic nutrition entails is defined (in practice) globally by the NRC under the United States Library of Congress, which compiles research into recommendations. In Europe, these recommendations are adapted into suitable recipes by FEDIAF, and in North America, the equivalent body is AAFCO.
The division is clear. NRC suggests how much of certain nutrients a dog should receive, and NRC’s recommendations are generally referred to when saying a dog needs this or that amount.
However, NRC’s recommendations generally do not consider how much food is eaten overall or how it’s done, although some recommendations are given through energy density.
That’s why FEDIAF and AAFCO (which are not authorities but associations of industry producers) convert the recommendations into forms that can be applied to dry foods and their recipes. Here comes energy density and a bunch of other equally amusing factors, and partly the reason why dry foods are difficult when considering whether a dog has deficiency symptoms, even though it eats complete food.
You can skip the indented paragraphs if you’re not interested in the theory.
Energy density (which is an incredibly difficult thing) and NRC’s conversion, even to FEDIAF’s regulations, is slightly opened in an unrelated article about a dog’s phosphorus needs. These theoretical slices should be separated into their own articles – maybe someday.
Energy density simply means how much calculated energy is in, for example, 100 grams (or a gram, pound, any weight) of food, derived from proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. If the food has, say, 2000 kJ/100 g of energy and the dog’s energy requirement is 20 kg weight at 550 kJ/kgME, or 5200 kJ, then the food should be fed at 260 grams due to its energy density, at least in principle.
The bad news is that when discussing the amount of nutrients in dry foods and whether complete food is truly complete, energy density means a couple of notches more complex issues than the simple division presented above.
When it’s decided that zinc is needed from dry food at 18 mg/4.18 MJ, then 18 mg of zinc must be added to a food amount that provides 4.18 MJ of energy when the dog consumes 460 kJ/kgME. As simple as making hay, right?
If we have a 20 kg dog, its energy requirement would be 550 kJ/kgME, or 4.35 MJ. If the food’s energy density is, say, 2 MJ/100 g, then 18 mg of zinc must be added for every 240 grams. A 20 kg dog would eat 217 grams of food and get 16.2 mg of zinc with that energy density. NRC, on the other hand, says the same dog should get 2 mg/kgME of zinc, or 18.9 mg, so they match – the differences come from rounding, using dry matter versus wet weight (dry food has 8-10% moisture, approximately), etc.
Now we’re approaching the core of the problem. What if you have a sterilized female that has gained weight to 25 kg and the owner is dieting it, and its energy requirement has dropped to, say, 300 kJ/kgME, or 3.35 megajoules? Then it would be given a calculated 167 grams of food, from which it would get 12.4 mg of zinc. The need based on overweight would be 22.3 mg, and with a target weight of 20 kg, 18.9 mg, so due to dry food, its energy density, and dog-specific needs, it would be 6.5 – 9.9 mg short every day. And we haven’t even talked about the bioavailability of the zinc form or the digestibility of the food.
Energy density can be overlooked in dry foods because they have one reasonably reliable indicator that tells how “strong” the food is and, for the slightly more experienced, also how much to give relative to other dry foods: the fat percentage.
If the food has 15% fat, it practically has half the calories of something with 30% fat. In real life, this means that if a dog loses weight on a 15% fat food eating, say, 8 dl, then a 30% fat food provides twice the calories with the same 8 dl serving. So you’ll get – once again practically – the same calories if you give 4 dl of 30% fat or 8 dl of 15% fat. Fattening isn’t more complicated than that.
But that can also work against the dog when gaining weight. We have a shoemaker’s children without shoes, and I managed to fatten a Russell with 20% fat. Dieting didn’t work because I would have had to drop the food amount so low that nothing else would have been obtained. So the food was changed to about 14% fat, so even though the food amount in deciliters remained the same, a fifth of the fat, meaning calories, disappeared at once.
Dieting isn’t more complicated than that (especially if you also stop giving cheese as snacks). It applies to humans too; you don’t need keto and meal replacement shakes for that.
The essential thing is to realize that dry foods are complete foods
- if the dog eats dry food according to its energy needs, approximately the recommended portion; genuinely a lower amount is sufficient, but not excessively below
- if the dog doesn’t belong to the approximately 20% group with a metabolism deviating from the average, etc.
- if the dog is generally lazy, generally healthy, generally adult
Problems are expected when the dog doesn’t fit into these three categories.
Age Stages and Consumption
Previously, the rule of thumb was that puppy foods were the same as adult active foods. Senior foods, in turn, were the same as adult light foods. And junior foods were either adult maintenance food or diet food – practically senior.
Nowadays, the situation has changed slightly, and although most still fall into that rule, exceptions have emerged. There are puppy foods on the market that are genuinely the same as the adult maintenance food of the same series. It’s not an improvement in adult foods but a weakening of puppy foods.
Now it’s fashionable to hide all essential nutritional values. Consumers don’t need to know, nor should they. They must be satisfied with age and breed markings and the prominently printed meat percentage – which is not accurate for any food. Everyone lies – shall we discuss more about responsibility and how dog owners are increasingly required to have deeper knowledge to manage even daily life?
Royal Canin used to provide the most nutritional information of all manufacturers. Currently, Royal Canin provides the least; the culture changed more heavily than the disappearance of RC’s discounts from Musteista and Mirreistä suggested.
Most manufacturers print product information so small and in such difficult spots that reading them is challenging even without farsightedness. We’re in a situation where even finding basic information like protein and fat amounts, not to mention ingredients, is intentionally made so difficult that people don’t even try.
Unfortunately, dry food manufacturers have been quite successful in this.
That’s why people don’t realize how much of the variety in dry foods has actually disappeared. What is thought to be a selection is genuinely a selection among different bag prints. Not between foods.
Purenatural is a refreshing exception regarding product information. The fat percentage is visible clearly and prominently. What Musti and Mirri didn’t consider (or they did, and they were quite right in thinking it didn’t matter) is how now you can see at a glance that all brand variations are actually the same in terms of energy.
The “strength” of dry food is purchased based on how much the dog consumes. If losing weight, more fat is given. If gaining weight, less food is given, preferably with lower fat content. The fact that dry foods are driven into mass brands removes this vital opportunity.
It might also awaken people to realize that genuinely no puppy foods or other age-specific foods are needed. Their nutritional content is not adjusted according to age stages, nor according to weight, breed, color, or any other total irrelevance. They are always the same, and the only meaningful variable is the amount of fat.
A dog owner always and without exception gives food based on weight. If the food doesn’t maintain weight and at some point, the portion starts to be… substantial, then it’s time to seek lower fat. And in gaining weight, of course, it’s the opposite. But it doesn’t relate to the dog’s age. It never has. Puppy foods are adult active because puppies consume so many calories for growth. Not because the eater is a puppy or an adult. The age marking is just suggestive advertising.
The fact that dry foods are currently being standardized has nothing to do with dogs. It’s just cheaper to bag into one without having to change anything other than the packaging. This is not a new thing. Take a look at the shampoo shelf in the store.
Do you remember the TV brands ASA and Finlux? They were the same with different brand stickers. When Nokia bought the TV production in Turku, after that, Salora and Nokia were also the same as those two.
You probably know the Finnish alcohol icons Finlandia vodka and Koskenkorva Vodka? They are exactly the same liquor.
There are countless examples, but the difference in the dog food world is marketing – if you don’t feed puppy food, your puppy will get sick.
Despite everything related to foods, those using dry food consider and make purchasing decisions based on two main criteria:
- brand and manufacturer
- what the food is claimed to be suitable for
And both criteria make the use of dry food difficult and laborious. Simply because there are countless manufacturers, and almost everything suits everything. Kidney foods that simultaneously acidify and alkalize are just the tip of the iceberg.
Potatoes, Grains, and Fluff
Ingredients are heavily emphasized. Advertisements are not based on facts but pure scare tactics.
- If you don’t feed potatoes, your dog will develop allergies
- If you don’t feed grains, your dog will develop heart disease
Baseless health claims are not limited to foods sold by veterinarians; they are encountered with every brand.
Is the term positive dominance familiar? If you believe in dominance theory at all, growling, baring teeth, and other aggression are negative dominance. Gentle looks, resting the head in the lap, and demanding with a paw are signs of positive dominance. The health claims of dry foods follow exactly the same pattern.
- If you don’t give this food, your dog’s intestines will break down, and it will develop urinary stones.
- If you give this food, your dog’s intestines will stay healthy, and its kidneys happy.
Two ways to present the same claim, and the result is the same: scaring with illness that will strike if you don’t feed this particular food.
People want the best for their dogs. If they don’t, they should give up the dog. The best for the dog, however, doesn’t mean the same as the advertised best. It must be practically the best thing for the dog.
Since we genuinely don’t know what’s best for the dog, we believe the most impactful advertisement and the testimonial of some random Facebook writer, even if we don’t know the person, the dog, anything. But they confirmed what we wanted to hear, so it’s easy to ignore dissenting voices. Still, no one asks what the dog needs.
- If you want to understand what you’re doing and who influences you, listen to the webinar series The Idea of Feeding.
Potato foods are not better than grain foods. They are actually worse in many respects. But they are a better option for the manufacturer because they are cheaper to produce. Once again, a downgrade was sold as an improvement and a healthy solution.
The same thing with fresh meat in dry foods. Fresh raw materials allowed for lower and cheaper quality at the same time as dog owners were convinced of the importance of meat. Meat is important for dogs, but foods boasting percentages don’t have more meat to offer. They often have less.
One food once claimed to use 38% meat meal and had 28% protein. The recipe was changed, and now fresh chicken is used, and the advertisements talk about an 85% meat content – which is, of course, very strange because the food also contains potatoes, and carbohydrates hover around 40%. Sharp-eyed observers noticed that although they talked about the meat percentage, they meant that 85% of the food’s proteins came from what was called fresh chicken.
With the recipe facelift, the total protein of the food dropped to 24%. So the advertised meat amount actually resulted in less protein and more carbohydrates than before. Peas appeared in three different forms in addition to potatoes in the ingredients.
In plain language: the high meat percentage food advertised as gut-friendly actually became nutritionally worse, including ingredients difficult for the stomach and intestines. And, of course, with a smaller bag size and a higher price than before.
The Difficulty of Choice
When you add dozens of different brands of dry food to the equation, each with dozens of different health and nutritional claims, and you need to find the right one from a variety of ingredients suitable for your dog’s weight, while also complicating the matter with age and breed, you’re quite in a swamp.
The most commonly asked question about dry foods is: what is good food?
That genuinely means the asker wants to find suitable food for their dog because the old one doesn’t fit for some reason. The answers then are presentations of what everyone else feeds their own, and soon all possible dry foods have been listed.
The question, which was hoped to help, only worsened the situation and makes the choice even more difficult. Before the question, one had to find food from the store’s selection based on what the seller wants to sell, but now the purchase must also satisfy a large and faceless online community.
That’s something, but I wouldn’t call it easy.
Someone will now say that choosing dry food is different from the ease or difficulty of using dry food. It’s not; it belongs entirely to the same process. That’s why so many give their dog the dry food that’s easiest to buy.
The ease of acquiring food guides its use, not the dog. What happens when the purchase location is removed from the equation, i.e., making acquisition more difficult… feeding becomes much more challenging as questions and stress increase because it’s not known what to give the dog at all.
Conclusion: Easy or Difficult?
Dry foods are an incredibly easy way to feed when a few basic conditions are met:
- the food suits the dog
- the portion sizes are reasonable by some measure
- the food is easy to buy and doesn’t lead to bankruptcy
When any of those three basic rules don’t apply, dry foods are not an easy way.
There is another way to measure the matter:
- you wonder if the dog gets everything it needs from the food
- you have to change the food for reasons other than your own convenience
- the dog is chronically ill or at least not in good condition
If the answer to any of those three is yes, then dry foods are not an easy way.
Some are now eagerly pointing out because they noticed one or two things.
The first is that none of those six criteria are specific to dry foods but are generally related to any feeding method. That is true, and the reason is obvious: the question is always about feeding the dog.
People just think that the feeding method is essential. It’s not. It’s a human choice to do things in a certain way, and that method has nothing to do with the dog.
The second noticed thing is that although I keep talking about ease, none of the points in the entire text have anything to do with ease. They relate to the special requirements and problems of using or acquiring foods. They relate to what people know or don’t know. And again: that matter has nothing to do with ease.
Ease is being able to pour food into a bowl without thinking, place it in front of the dog, and about half a minute later, let the dog out to relieve itself.
Even the use of supplements is not related to ease. Someone wonders what zinc to give a raw-fed/meat-fed dog. Another wonders if they dare to give zinc to a dog with heartburn. A third wonders if they should give zinc to a dry-fed dog because the eye areas are balding. None of those three concerns relate to ease but to doing things or not doing them.
That choice comes from learning and practicing.
Dry foods are easy because they don’t require freezing for storage, and dosing takes about 5 seconds if you’re slow or the bag is running low. The only thing to consider is the portion size.
A meat-based raw diet is easy because only a few supplements are needed. Calculating them can be done by someone who has completed third grade in primary school, and then it’s given the same way day after day. Scooping meat into a bowl happens even faster than giving dry food. The only difficulty is remembering to thaw the meat.
50/50 feeding is the most difficult way. You have to give dry food and meat, even from two different containers. Additionally, a couple of supplements are preferably needed, but the laziest owners manage without – more precisely, the dog manages, even if the owner is lazy.
The advantage is that if you forget to thaw meat, you can give just dry food. If the bottom of the dry food bag is reached, you can give just meat for a while.
Things get complicated, sometimes a lot, if the dog is sick or has other restrictions. But those problems are the same to solve with dry foods and raw feeding.
Dry food and meat-based feeding are equally easy or difficult. Neither can be ignored just because you don’t know how. If you don’t know, you learn. If learning takes fifteen minutes, who still claims that the matter is significantly difficult? Or have you already forgotten learning to ride a bike or the basics of relationships? Those are difficult things, not basic dog feeding.
Dog feeding must be guided by the pursuit of the best useful goal. The tools are free, and each has its pros and cons, which are not related to ease.
