People occasionally ask what I think of a particular dog food. I have always answered honestly, and sometimes not very diplomatically. I like understanding what a dog actually eats rather than believing the first attractive word on the bag. That was what originally inspired me to examine five dry foods and explain what raised questions for me.<\/p>\n
Today I would approach the comparison a little differently. An ingredient list matters, but a single word such as \u201cmeat meal\u201d, \u201cmaize\u201d or \u201cpotassium chloride\u201d proves neither quality nor danger. For me, however, these words are reasons to ask more questions and examine the formula more closely. Nor can I automatically assume a recipe examined in 2021 is identical to what the manufacturer sells now. Below I revisit the original questions alongside manufacturers’ published formulas. Today’s information confirms some earlier observations and corrects others.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
An ingredient list tells us which raw materials were used and usually their order by weight before processing. On its own it does not reveal their actual quality control, digestibility, contaminant testing or the availability of every nutrient. A famous manufacturer or a \u201cveterinary range\u201d label is no independent proof of quality either. My comparison begins elsewhere: if the logo disappeared, would reading this same formula tell me what I want to feed my dog?<\/p>\n
Check separately whether the product is complete or complementary, its intended life stage, and its analytical protein, fat, fibre and mineral values. FEDIAF nutrient guidelines help assess nutritional adequacy, but do not replace a manufacturer’s batch and ingredient checks. \u201c70% fresh meat\u201d cannot be directly compared with \u201c38% dried meat meal\u201d, because fresh meat contains much water. Attractive percentages can easily mislead here.<\/p>\n
When writing the original article, I compared Estonian online-shop descriptions with Brit Care’s manufacturer information. Some sellers simply listed \u201clamb\u201d, whereas the manufacturer listed \u201clamb meat meal\u201d. \u201cPoultry fat\u201d was also more specifically chicken fat in the manufacturer’s English list. When choosing food to avoid a particular protein, such imprecision is a valid reason to request clarification.<\/p>\n
The currently published Brit Care Adult Large Breed Lamb & Rice manufacturer page lists 38% lamb meat meal, 38% rice, chicken fat and 2% salmon oil. Its Estonian and English pages agree on these main points. Those errors have therefore now been corrected. That does not change my recommendation to compare an Estonian shop’s ingredient list with the manufacturer’s information whenever possible.<\/p>\n
My personal preference is animal ingredients of the clearest possible origin, with the species and form explicitly named. But named lamb meat meal is not automatically the same thing as an unspecified \u201cmeat and bone meal\u201d.<\/p>\n
The European Union places clear restrictions on the origin of animal by-products used in pet food. For example, carcasses of animals that died on farms or were euthanised are not among the ingredients permitted in ordinary pet food. In the United States the issue has been more complicated: historically, FDA enforcement practice tolerated some uses of animal waste after heat treatment, and drug residues associated with euthanised animals have officially been documented in feed ingredients. That is why I want to know what meat meal is made from, where it comes from and how the manufacturer checks its safety. I am not saying all meat meals are bad, but I do not take their quality for granted.<\/p>\n
Meat meal is a concentrated ingredient produced by heat treatment and drying. Its actual value depends on the starting material, processing, digestibility and controls. These are legitimate quality questions, not a diagnosis made from a word.<\/p>\n
Chicken fat is another issue. Food allergies generally involve proteins. Carefully purified fat may therefore contain very little allergenic protein, but its presence cannot be excluded. Purity cannot always be inferred from the bag either. With a confirmed severe chicken-protein reaction or a strict elimination trial, ask the manufacturer about the fat’s origin and possible residual protein.<\/p>\n
The original Applaws example was selected for its high animal-protein proportion. The historical list included 66% dried chicken, 8% chicken mince, 8% dried peas, 6% potato starch and 2.5% chicken fat. This represented a particular market and time, and should not be republished as today’s label without checking.<\/p>\n
The current UK manufacturer page for Applaws Adult Large Breed Chicken instead lists \u201cchicken 43.6%\u201d: 34% chicken meal and 9.6% freshly prepared chicken. It also includes potato, beet pulp, 4% poultry fat, peas and dried egg. This differs substantially from the historical percentages. A product name does not guarantee an unchanged recipe; the specific market or pack size can also list things differently.<\/p>\n
My questions about egg are mainly about quality. I prefer eggs from free-range hens, but considering their price, I am fairly convinced they do not end up in dry dog food. Egg itself does not indicate poor quality. It can provide useful amino acids, but may be an allergen for a susceptible dog, making origin and tolerance important. Heat processing can reduce some vitamins, so manufacturers add them back. That is not automatically evidence of nutritional inadequacy. Ask instead whether the finished formula meets complete-feed requirements after processing and has demonstrably been checked. For me, though, the biggest question remains egg quality.<\/p>\n
I originally chose Acana Grasslands after a customer said it did not suit their allergic dog. The Estonian description and one English ingredient list did not match: one included turkey meal and fish, the other goat meat as well. I thought it was a mistranslation. It is now clear that products sharing the name have had different formulas across markets and time. One text cannot prove a translator confused turkey with goat.<\/p>\n
Acana’s current European Grasslands page lists, for example, 8.5% raw lamb, 8.5% raw duck, 8% eggs, 8% lamb meal, 7% herring meal and 7% turkey meal, alongside legumes, organs, fish oil and vegetables. The same name can cover different products elsewhere. For allergy investigations or manufacturer comparisons, check the exact bag label, batch or market version and date.<\/p>\n
Egg and added salt also bothered me in that earlier analysis. With egg, quality remains my main concern. With salt, I always ask why it needs to be added to dry food: to encourage eating, or genuinely to achieve nutritional balance? Particular caution with salt is appropriate in dogs with heart or kidney disease.<\/p>\n
The old Pro Plan formula provoked my strongest resistance: 19% chicken, wheat, dried poultry protein, 8% rice, animal fat, maize, soya meal, beet pulp, maize gluten meal, maize grits, salmon protein and dried egg. I want to know these ingredients’ functions and sources, rather than assume everything is fine because the manufacturer is well known. Purina Europe’s current Pro Plan Large Athletic OPTIBALANCE page lists the same main components and percentages.<\/p>\n
Using maize in several forms affects how prominently the weights of individual plant ingredients appear in the list. This deserves questions, especially when comparing the actual contributions of animal and plant protein. Wheat does not damage every dog’s intestinal lining, and gluten is not a problem for all dogs. Diet suitability depends on an allergy or a specific disease. With an established food reaction, an elimination trial matters much more than a generic \u201cwheat-free\u201d label.<\/p>\n
Some sources claim GM soya or maize can cause cancer and autoimmune disease. Although evidence for that is currently lacking, integrative veterinarians’ concerns are a reason for caution for me. GM technology must be assessed by crop variety, modified trait, growing conditions, residue profile and actual exposure. That does not rule out questions about specific pesticide residues or production practices. They are separate research questions that cannot be settled by the letters \u201cGMO\u201d.<\/p>\n
I personally prefer greater transparency about animal ingredients and their quantities. That is a legitimate selection criterion. But an ingredient list alone cannot establish that a particular food causes gastrointestinal damage or fails complete-feed requirements. That needs actual analyses, clinical data and the individual dog’s response.<\/p>\n
I once fed Platinum lamb food to my dogs and initially liked its general formula. It listed 70% fresh lamb, rice and many plant additions. Potassium chloride bothered me. I had read about its use in fertilisers and de-icing products and its association with possible intestinal injury. Meanwhile, some customers reported watery eyes or diarrhoea in their dogs. I wondered whether the same substance might be responsible.<\/p>\n
The current Platinum Adult Lamb manufacturer page still lists 70% fresh lamb and potassium chloride near the end. One point needs explaining: potassium chloride is a potassium and chloride salt used as an electrolyte source and in many other fields. Its use in fertiliser or a medical treatment does not mean the quantity in feed is inherently toxic, although for me it remains a reason to avoid the substance. Potassium itself is essential for dogs; I simply believe there are better ways to provide it. Risk depends on quantity and the dog’s condition, for example kidney function or drugs that increase potassium levels. European regulation even uses potassium content as a numerical criterion for certain veterinary diets.<\/p>\n
\u201c70% fresh meat\u201d is also instructive here: it is measured before moisture is removed. Platinum gives the food’s moisture as about 19%, whereas many dry foods contain around 10%. This affects percentage comparisons. To compare meaningful amounts of protein or fat, look at dry matter or, more practically, per 1000 kcal eaten, not just the front-of-bag meat percentage.<\/p>\n
Some integrative veterinarians discussing meat meal highlight the synthetic antioxidants BHA and BHT and associated animal experiments. Some reported effects deserve attention: they are reasons food and feed additives are regulated and manufacturers must justify use. But a high experimental dose, another species’ biology or an organ finding does not establish that a dog suffers the same harm from a particular dry food. We need the substance, dose, actual feed concentration, amount fed, exposure duration and the dog’s condition.<\/p>\n
For example, EFSA’s 2018 assessment of BHA as a feed additive considered up to 150 mg\/kg complete feed acceptable for dogs, among other species, under the specified conditions; important data gaps remained for cats. EFSA’s 2022 BHT assessment described different uncertainty and could not generalise a safe level to all target species from the available evidence. This means neither \u201cBHA and BHT are completely safe\u201d nor \u201cthey are poisonous in every bag\u201d. It shows why safety and danger claims require equally precise scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Choosing food preserved with tocopherols is my ingredient preference. A manufacturer’s claim to use only tocopherols and rosemary extract is also worth checking for the particular product. But \u201cmeat meal\u201d does not automatically mean BHA or BHT is present. Ask for the antioxidant’s exact name and use.<\/p>\n
Certificates and standards may demonstrate a quality-management system, but do not alone prove the food suits your dog. \u201cHuman-grade\u201d, a short supply chain and country of manufacture are relevant questions for me, but their meaning needs defining. I want to know where ingredients come from, how they are checked, whether the formula has changed and what analysis or quality-system evidence the manufacturer can show. Then I look at the complete food’s nutrients and finally my dog’s actual health and eating habits.<\/p>\n
Examining five foods originally showed me how differently one formula can be presented. Today I feel more strongly about one thing: marketing is not enough; I want precise answers. But I have also learned that one unwelcome ingredient must not replace the whole analysis. We need not choose between believing manufacturers and fearing everything. We can ask better questions, compare data and decide for our own dog, rather than the image on the bag.<\/p>\n