A dog food bag may proudly declare \u201c26% protein\u201d, but that tells us neither what kind of protein the food contains nor how efficiently a dog can use it. At FendaF, I have often said that not all protein is equal. We could say the same about an animal: muscle, liver, heart, skin and horns may all come from a cow, but their nutritional value is far from identical.<\/p>\n
This article looks at differences between animal ingredients and what we can actually learn from an ingredient list. We have explored the broader comparison of animal and plant proteins in a separate article, Animal protein in your pet’s food<\/a>. Here, we go a step further: what is really behind the term animal protein?<\/p>\n Proteins are made up of amino acids. Dogs need ten essential amino acids from food: arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan and valine. It is not enough that these amino acids are present; their amounts and proportions matter, as does the digestive system’s ability to access them.<\/p>\n The crude protein figure on a label is an analytical measure, generally calculated from nitrogen content. It cannot, on its own, show whether that protein has a balanced amino acid profile or is readily digestible. There can be important differences between plant and animal protein sources, as well as between different animal sources. Feeding trials in dogs have shown that protein source can affect digestibility and some metabolic markers even when diets contain similar amounts of protein.<\/p>\n Two foods that each contain 26% crude protein may therefore be nutritionally different. This remains true even when both contain animal protein.<\/p>\n When people think of animal ingredients, they often imagine just one thing: meat. In reality, an animal consists of very different tissues, many of which can be nutritionally valuable. That is why it is a mistake to treat \u201cby-product\u201d as a synonym for poor quality.<\/p>\n Muscle meat is generally a good source of essential amino acids and can provide iron, zinc and B vitamins. Its composition varies with the animal species, cut, fat content and processing. Fresh meat contains a great deal of water, so the percentages of fresh meat and dried meat meal cannot be compared directly.<\/p>\n Liver, kidneys, heart and spleen are not second-rate scraps. They can be very valuable: liver, for instance, provides vitamin A and copper, while heart supplies protein and other nutrients. But this does not mean that more organs are always better. Too much liver in particular can upset the balance of certain nutrients. The full recipe matters more than the reputation of one ingredient.<\/p>\n Skin and connective tissue contain substantial amounts of collagen. Collagen can fulfil nutritional and technological roles, but its amino acid profile is not equivalent to muscle protein. Collagen, for example, lacks tryptophan and contains a different proportion of essential amino acids. A collagen-rich ingredient cannot simply replace an equal quantity of muscle and be assumed to provide identical nutrition.<\/p>\n Keratin is a tough structural protein that helps make hair, feathers, hooves and horns resistant to damage. In its untreated state, its nutritional availability is limited. Special processing or hydrolysis can improve digestibility, but does not make its amino acid profile equivalent to muscle protein. Nor are all these materials automatically used in dog food: their use is subject to feed-material and animal by-product rules.<\/p>\n That is why, whenever I read an ingredient list, I ask which tissue the animal protein comes from. The words \u201canimal\u201d and \u201cprotein\u201d alone do not answer that question.<\/p>\n European pet food labels may identify ingredients by specific names or by permitted categories. \u201cMeat and animal derivatives\u201d is one such broad category. The wording does not automatically mean that low-quality material is used, but it does provide less detail about which animal tissues are included.<\/p>\n For instance, \u201cmeat and animal derivatives (including 4% beef)\u201d does not mean that only 4% of the food’s ingredients are animal-derived. In this example, the percentage refers to the specifically named ingredient. The label may not reveal precisely what the rest of the animal-derived fraction contains.<\/p>\n I would rather see greater transparency than demonise every general ingredient name. When manufacturers identify the meat, organs and animal meals they use, customers can make better-informed comparisons. If that information is not on the label, they can ask for it.<\/p>\n The English word \u201cmeal\u201d often refers to dried animal-derived ingredients. Meat meal and other animal meals are generally heat-treated and dried materials from which much of the water, and often some of the fat, has been removed. This concentrates the protein and makes the ingredient suitable for storage and industrial food production.<\/p>\n Heat processing does not automatically make an ingredient bad. It is also important for food safety. Excessively harsh or unsuitable processing conditions may, however, alter the availability of certain amino acids. The result depends on the ingredient, processing technology and production controls.<\/p>\n In a feeding trial with dogs, digestibility varied between animal by-products, and rendering influenced small-intestinal digestibility for some ingredients. That is a better basis for discussing quality than claiming either that all meals are bad or that fresh ingredients are always superior.<\/p>\n Criticism from integrative veterinarians remains relevant here. Judy Morgan includes the generic ingredient \u201cmeat and bone meal\u201d among those she recommends avoiding, primarily because its animal origin may be unclear and its quality variable. Peter Dobias is critical of heavily processed ingredients and does not recommend conventional heat-treated bone meal as a dog’s calcium source, raising questions about availability and potential contamination. These are their integrative views, not scientific proof that all animal meals have no nutritional value.<\/p>\n I agree that we should distinguish between generic meat and bone meal, meat meal made from an identified species, and bone meal used specifically as a calcium source. They can differ in raw materials, mineral content and purpose. Manufacturer transparency, amino acid composition, digestibility and contaminant testing all matter. Just because a technology could be used to process cheap or inferior material does not mean every manufacturer using that technology does so. Nevertheless, my personal choice is not to feed my dogs products that contain meat meal and\/or bone meal.<\/p>\n It is crucial here to distinguish between the US market, European Union legislation and documented quality incidents. There have indeed been cases in the United States in which pet food was found to contain pentobarbital, a drug used for euthanasia. In 2018, for example, the US FDA announced a dog food recall after this substance was found in animal fat used as an ingredient. This does not prove that all US-made foods are unsafe or that the affected batches reached Estonia. It does show why traceability and testing are reasonable concerns.<\/p>\n The EU classifies animal by-products into three risk categories. Ordinary pet food generally uses compliant Category 3 materials. These may include parts deemed unfit for human consumption when the slaughtered animal passed the required ante-mortem inspection and the materials show no signs of disease transmissible through them. Material from animals that died on farms or show signs of infectious disease cannot simply be labelled Category 3 and used in regular pet food.<\/p>\n This does not mean that quality problems or fraud are impossible. It means that criticism must be precise: which legal framework, ingredient, manufacturer or documented incident are we discussing? A single confirmed contamination case does not justify treating all manufacturers as identical, but neither should it be ignored.<\/p>\n What if dog food made in the United States is sold in Estonia? Processed pet food containing animal ingredients and imported into the EU must comply with EU requirements regardless of the country of manufacture. Import conditions include approved origins and establishments, as well as an appropriate veterinary health certificate accompanying the consignment. The US authority USDA APHIS issues certificates for exports to the EU which cover, among other things, the permitted animal by-products used and applicable processing requirements.<\/p>\n Importers must ensure the feed is compliant and traceable. At EU border control posts, relevant consignments undergo documentary checks; identity and physical checks, including laboratory sampling where applicable, are risk-based. This does not mean every batch is tested for every possible veterinary drug residue, or that a certificate is laboratory proof that every prohibited substance is absent. Once properly admitted to the EU market, goods may move between Member States, while feed-business operators retain their respective obligations.<\/p>\n When a manufacturer or importer makes especially strong claims about quality, I think it entirely reasonable to ask about supplier audits, batch-specific analyses and risk-based controls for drug residues in addition to legally required checks. Responsible importing is more than moving a bag across a border.<\/p>\n When a producer can spend substantially more on a recipe’s ingredients, different choices become possible. Yet quality cannot be calculated from the price or percentage of meat alone. The actual composition, supplier reliability, batch consistency, processing conditions, amino acid and mineral testing and the safety of the finished food all matter.<\/p>\n Think about ordinary sausages. One recipe may include more muscle meat, another more inexpensive components and connective tissue. Both have a protein figure in the nutrition table, but that does not make the recipes identical. Equally, we cannot calculate digestibility or the availability of every amino acid solely from the meat percentage on a sausage label. It is an example that helps us ask better questions, not a substitute for laboratory evidence.<\/p>\n For a broader look at the cost of ingredients and its relationship to canine health, see our article Why food quality matters<\/a>.<\/p>\n In integrative veterinary writing, including that of Judy Morgan and Peter Dobias, a recurring question is how good the body’s daily building materials are and how food may influence digestion, skin and overall recovery. I find this a valuable point: a dog does not eat a percentage printed on a bag. It eats actual food.<\/p>\n That does not mean a dog must eat raw food to obtain protein. Balanced dry, wet, home-prepared and raw diets may each be suitable in different circumstances. Raw diets have microbiological and nutritional-balancing risks; a poorly formulated home-prepared diet can cause deficiencies even when the ingredients are fresh and the owner’s intentions are excellent.<\/p>\n FENDAF’S GOLDEN RULE:<\/strong> The protein percentage tells you \u201chow much\u201d. Digestibility and the amino acid profile tell you what the dog can actually use.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Protein is more than a number on a bag, and animal origin alone is not proof of quality. Muscle meat, organs, collagen and keratin have markedly different amino acid profiles and nutritional characteristics. A by-product may be valuable, while an impressive-sounding expensive ingredient does not necessarily improve the whole recipe.<\/p>\n I want pet owners to have more information and less reason to rely only on the front of the bag. The question is not simply whether a food contains protein, but what protein it contains and how the body can use it.<\/p>\n We do not believe one type of diet suits every dog. We share research, integrative perspectives and experience to help you assess what may work for your dog. For health concerns, this article does not replace veterinary advice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A dog food bag may proudly declare \u201c26% protein\u201d, but that tells us neither what kind of protein the food contains nor how efficiently a dog can use it. At FendaF, I have often said that not all protein is equal. We could say the same about an animal: muscle, liver, heart, skin and horns […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":189928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[698,699],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-health","category-products"],"acf":[],"featured_image_src":{"landsacpe":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/EN_02_protein_in_dog_food_300x300.png",300,300,false],"list":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/EN_02_protein_in_dog_food_300x300.png",300,300,false],"medium":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/EN_02_protein_in_dog_food_300x300.png",300,300,false],"full":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/EN_02_protein_in_dog_food_300x300.png",300,300,false]},"yoast_head":"\nWhat is protein, and why is one percentage not enough?<\/h2>\n
Meat, organs and by-products: why one label does not tell the whole story<\/h2>\n
Muscle meat<\/h3>\n
Organs<\/h3>\n
Skin, connective tissue and collagen<\/h3>\n
Keratin: hair, feathers, hooves and horns<\/h3>\n
What does \u201cmeat and animal derivatives\u201d mean on a European label?<\/h2>\n
What is meat meal, and how does heat processing affect quality?<\/h2>\n
Can animal by-products contain dangerous or prohibited materials?<\/h2>\n
Ingredient costs and quality: can a manufacturer simply ignore the trade-offs?<\/h2>\n
What does integrative veterinary medicine say?<\/h2>\n
\n
FendaF’s practical advice<\/h2>\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
References<\/h3>\n
\n
\ud83d\udc3e FendaF believes in informed choices<\/h3>\n