Dry dog food ingredients compared, part 2

Reading time: about 9 min

People often ask what I think of a particular dry food. The purpose of this series is to show what I notice when reading an ingredient list, what questions arise and why I would choose one food for my dogs and set another aside. This is my reasoned assessment. Looking at a specific recipe does not automatically tell us the quality of an entire brand.

Part two covers five foods familiar from the original article: Aatu duck, Farmina Ecopet lamb for large dogs, Orijen Regional Red, Carnilove lamb and wild boar, and Hau-Hau Champion lamb and rice. The ingredient lists examined come from the earlier article. They are not recipe sheets confirmed by manufacturers in November 2026. When buying a bag today, check its exact name, market and packaging.

The manufacturer's background still matters to me: origin, ingredient traceability, what a human-grade claim actually means, and the food safety management system. Originally, I also asked about FSSC 22000 certification and local or “zero-kilometre” ingredients. These are meaningful questions, but none alone proves the quality of the whole food. Local ingredients may be readily traceable; a short journey does not replace testing or a balanced recipe.

In part one and parts three to five, we have already discussed general label reading at greater length. Here I go straight to these five examples. Differences between ingredient lists in different languages are particularly revealing, as is the question of when an ingredient name provides real information and when it merely prompts me to ask the manufacturer more questions.

Aatu duck

I liked this recipe very much in the original comparison. Clearly identified animal ingredients and a large duck component remain strengths for me. The recorded composition contained 80% duck: 51% duck meat and 29% dehydrated duck meat. The English list added sweet potato, chickpeas, peas, alfalfa, salmon oil, duck stock and a longer list of plants and joint-support ingredients.

This raises the first transparency question. Our original Estonian list grouped some ingredients under the broad terms “fruit, vegetables, oils and fats”. The English version clearly showed the pulses. A shorter translation gives the buyer a different impression, even if both describe the same recipe. I would prefer a complete manufacturer-confirmed ingredient list to a generalised importer list.

80% duck does not mean that the finished kibble contains 80% protein or that its proportion of animal dry matter is exactly the same. Fresh and dehydrated ingredients contain different amounts of water. This does not diminish the value of the duck ingredients, but a percentage must continue to mean what it actually describes.

My original additional question concerned taurine. I wrote that the food would be even better if the manufacturer added it. Today I would frame the question more broadly: how have the amino acid adequacy, digestibility and long-term suitability of this pulse-containing recipe been assessed? Added taurine may form part of a recipe, but it alone does not prove that every possible nutrition-related cardiac risk has been addressed.

The long list of herbs and joint-support ingredients is interesting too, but the dose must match the promise. The original English list contained glucosamine and MSM at 178 mg/kg each, and chondroitin at 125 mg/kg. For example, a daily portion of 300 g would provide approximately 53 mg, 53 mg and 38 mg respectively. This is a calculation from the composition, not evidence of a therapeutic effect or a suitable treatment dose. A herb's name on a list does not replace knowing what quantity and effect the manufacturer actually intends.

Farmina Ecopet lamb for large dogs

Here my initial questions concerned rice and maize at the top of the list, animal protein sources only afterwards, added salt and mono-dicalcium phosphate. Those questions have not disappeared. I want to know what underpins this food's nutritional value and how much of its protein comes from animal sources.

The originally recorded list began with rice, maize and dehydrated chicken; dehydrated lamb meat accounted for 10%. It also contained dried fish. This is therefore not a lamb single-protein food, and 10% lamb does not show the total amount of animal ingredients or animal protein. The quantities of chicken and fish were not given. To me, this is a substantive limit on transparency, rather than simply an ingredient order I dislike.

For maize, my preference is for non-GMO ingredients of controlled origin. However, the absence of a non-GMO statement does not prove that the maize used is genetically modified. Nor is non-GMO status a laboratory result for pesticide residues. I would ask instead about origin, traceability and residue testing. The word “maize” alone does not tell us whether this batch is high quality or what it does to a dog's health.

Why I ask about added salt

Sodium chloride is table salt, and dogs need both sodium and chloride. It is therefore inaccurate to say that it must never be present in dog food. At the same time, I consider it entirely reasonable to ask why it is added to this particular recipe and what the finished food's total sodium content is. The words “sodium chloride” do not reveal that quantity.

My preference for avoiding unnecessary added salt can remain, but the explanation must distinguish the actual quantity, the recipe's purpose and the dog's health. I discuss added salt and my experience with Fenton's food preferences in more detail in part five of the series.

The phosphate question deserves a more precise answer

Originally, I associated dicalcium phosphate with impaired calcium absorption and bone loss. Based on the available information, I would no longer draw such a direct conclusion about this particular food. Calcium phosphates can provide calcium and phosphorus in a diet, but their form, amount and the calcium-to-phosphorus balance matter.

This does not mean concerns about mineral phosphate additives are meaningless. A study in dogs by Dobenecker and colleagues compared eight phosphorus sources in high-phosphorus diets. In an 18-day trial involving eight beagles, highly water-soluble sodium and potassium phosphates in particular caused greater post-meal changes in phosphorus metabolism markers. The authors considered the use of certain inorganic phosphates potentially harmful.

The mono-dicalcium phosphate named in this recipe cannot simply be equated with the sodium or potassium phosphate that produced the greatest effect. Nor does a short high-phosphorus trial establish that this particular bag causes osteoporosis. It does, however, justify asking the manufacturer for the finished food's phosphorus and calcium levels, their ratio, and the exact form and quantity of the phosphate additive. “It is a permitted mineral” does not answer every quality question.

Orijen Regional Red

Based on the original list, I liked the variety of animal ingredients. Alongside meat, it named liver, heart, other organs and fish. I do not regard organs as a disadvantage in themselves: the questions concern appropriate proportions, ingredient quality and the balance of the whole diet.

In this example, however, identifying the recipe is especially important. The recorded Estonian version included bison and sardines, while the English version listed goat meat, goat meal and Atlantic mackerel. These are not simply two translations of the same word. They may reflect different markets, periods or recipe versions. Without packaging and manufacturer confirmation, I cannot automatically declare the English version correct and the Estonian one wrong.

Both lists contained several pulses or their fractions: lentils, peas, chickpeas or beans; lentil fibre was also mentioned. This raises a legitimate question about their combined contribution. Dividing ingredients among several names can make their overall quantity harder to grasp at first glance, but missing percentages cannot be calculated from the list.

Here too, my answer would not simply be “add taurine and everything is fine”. The FDA's work on potentially diet-associated DCM considers several possible factors. The high position of pulses in some foods associated with cases is a signal for further investigation; it does not prove that every pea is dangerous or that causation has been established for this particular recipe. My question to the manufacturer remains about comprehensive recipe assessment and transparent data.

Carnilove lamb and wild boar

The translation particularly bothered me in this example. The historical Estonian list stated 30% wild boar meat and 25% lamb meat. The English version used wild boar meat meal and lamb meat meal at the same percentages. Meat and meat meal should not appear to buyers as the same ingredient.

I prefer to know the origin and processing of animal ingredients, and I am critical of intensively processed meals. That preference remains. “Meal” describes a processed, concentrated ingredient, but does not by itself establish poor digestibility or contamination. For dried animal protein, I would also ask about ash content, consistency of quality, processing and supplier controls. The high water content of fresh meat also means its percentage cannot be compared directly, one to one, with a meat meal percentage.

In her criticism of dry foods, integrative veterinarian Judy Morgan has highlighted repeated processing and ingredient quality. These deserve investigation. It does not follow that all meals are the same or that the word “meat” explains the entire processing history. Meeting nutritional needs and my preference for less processed, better described ingredients are separate levels of assessment.

For Carnilove, the question of recipe versions extended beyond a single translation. The Estonian list included 5% deboned duck and 8% chicken fat; the English list lacked that duck entry and contained 10% chicken fat. These two lists must therefore not be silently combined into one corrected recipe. Manufacturer confirmation is needed about which product and period each describes.

Both historical lists contained 20% yellow peas and 1% chickpeas. This is specific information about the plant components and supports the same question about comprehensive recipe assessment that I raised for Aatu and Orijen. The absence of added taurine alone still cannot diagnose taurine deficiency in the food.

Can meat meal bring an undeclared preservative into the food

My original concern involved the supply chain: could an ingredient supplier add an antioxidant that is not shown in the finished food's short ingredient list? This is a reasonable question because labelling does not necessarily describe the entire production chain.

EU labelling requirements distinguish ingredients, feed additives, category names and access to additional information. The obligation depends on the substance and its use, not merely on who purchased or added it. This historical composition specifically stated that the chicken fat was preserved with tocopherols, but this does not establish how the rest of the supply chain was preserved. I would ask the manufacturer about antioxidants in all ingredients and in the finished food, and request an exact explanation of the “natural” claim.

Hau-Hau Champion lamb and rice

In this original comparison, the Estonian and Finnish ingredient lists matched well. That is a real advantage: buyers received essentially the same information. The first ingredients were lamb meal, rice, hydrolysed rice protein and maize, with chicken fat and salmon oil also included. It is not a simple recipe containing only lamb, although the significance of animal fat and protein sources should be considered separately where necessary.

My questions concerned the origin of the meat meal, controls on maize and the low price. They remain relevant. A very low price may prompt investigation of where the manufacturer is making savings, but price alone cannot prove poor ingredients. Pack size, the supply chain, marketing and margins also affect price. I cannot say that quality ingredients are definitely impossible here without knowing ingredient data and production costs. But the question is sharper for me than it would otherwise be.

Hydrolysed rice protein is a plant protein source here. Its presence reminds us that the analytical protein percentage is not a meat percentage. I would ask how much of the total protein comes from lamb and how much from rice protein and other plants. Without that information, my assessment remains one of limited transparency, rather than a completed calculation.

In my own choices, clearly identified and controlled animal ingredients and a recipe that is as understandable as possible still matter. Manufacturer-confirmed answers can change the assessment. A general advertising slogan provides less information than a precise answer about origin, composition and analysis of the finished product.

The most practical lesson from five bags

The background to taurine and pulses does not require us to panic and remove every pea. Nor is there reason to stop asking questions merely because a food is complete or carries a familiar logo. The FDA has not identified one specific ingredient as the cause of all potentially diet-associated DCM cases. This leaves room for reasoned caution and demands for better data.

Before choosing any of these recipes for myself, I would first want to establish which composition I was actually assessing. For several examples, that remains unresolved. An attractive English list is of no use if the bag in an Estonian shop contains a different recipe.

I do not regard every food as suitable for my dog simply because its possible harm has not been proven by a single study. A preference may reasonably rest on a recipe being too vague for my expectations or its ingredient choices not suiting me. But if I say that an ingredient causes disease, much more precise evidence is needed. Maintaining that distinction makes criticism stronger.

For comparison, the most useful information is on the actual packaging: it gives us a starting point for further investigation, rather than guessing from a name.

Sources

• FendaF — Dry food ingredients part 2, original article. Source of historical ingredient lists and original observations.
• FDA — Work on Potential Causes of Non-Hereditary DCM in Dogs.
• Dobenecker et al. 2021 — The Source Matters Effects of High Phosphate Intake from Eight Different Sources in Dogs. DOI 10.3390/ani11123456.
• Dobenecker et al. 2021 — Effects of dietary phosphates from organic and inorganic sources in healthy adult dogs. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0246950.
• FEDIAF — Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food. A framework for assessing nutrient adequacy, including minerals.
• EU Regulation 767/2009 — Feed labelling and additional information for the buyer.
• FEDIAF — Code of Good Labelling Practice for Pet Food.

---

---