Answer from PAH re: colour of new WW's grain free wet fish

[JeffD]

I do not know why folks get so uptight about fish and animal carcass being used as long as its human grade , Dogs need bone in the diet the rest is flesh just not the bit we eat now days, but saying that I have had cod cheeks a good few times on Scandinavian boats and it is the best bit of the cod and I eat the skin on cod as well.

I will accept that there are a few manufactures that use whole fish that is not destined for the human market but its not the norm, when did you last see pike or flounder in the fish mongers I have eaten both Pike is not to bad if you are starving Flounder is fishy cotton wool with bones in it.
Cheap bad dog foods use processed fish and animal meal, those companies that make a good quality dog food use quality fish and animal by-product i.e. the bits we don't eat

My dog has chicken carcass all the time, she has whole fish that I catch or buy from the super market she also has what's left after I fillet a fish it makes no difference to her, I would not dream of giving her just  the fillet she would be loosing out on the goodness from the bones and skin.
As far as I am concerned its not what part of the animal she is eating that's important its the quality of that  animal and the fact it has not been processed at all.

[BobnDot]

Sorry Jeff, I'm not getting uptight about anything. You made a statement about the type of fish in dog foods and I pointed out that this wasn't necessarily the case, and gave a link to the manufacturer concerned.  They also say that the fish, and other animal products they use, HAS been passed as fit for human consumption and is not pre-processed prior to delivery to them.

Dog food is a very emotive thing and we all have our own opinions on what's best for our dogs. I'm not saying that the dog food I use is any better than anyone else's choice, merely that the statement you'd made didn't accord with the published data from at least one pet food manufacturer.

Not intended to be critical in any way, merely informative  .

Bob.

[JeffD]

Sorry Bob my comments were not directed at you in anyway please forgive me if you think I was having a go, I was admitting that some companies use whole animal and fish after checking your link, but more that some folks get upset about using carcass and the bits we normally don't eat.

Yes we worry more about our dogs diets than we do our own you can imagine how I argue with the guys I know who feed their dogs by price and not content.

[LurcherGirl]

It seems to me the main ingredients are fish head and skins, with a smaller percentage of flesh.
Obviously the cost is the main thing.

Dogs will eat anything but what goodness are they getting from the food? That to me is the first thing to consider. A lot of dogs do well on any type of food just makes you think about what you are buying 

If I remember correctly the head of the fish is the most nutritional part and contains nutrients that the flesh doesn't contain... so just because it is something we don't eat, doesn't mean that it's no good. 

[Mudmagnets]

It seems to me the main ingredients are fish head and skins, with a smaller percentage of flesh.
Obviously the cost is the main thing.

Dogs will eat anything but what goodness are they getting from the food? That to me is the first thing to consider. A lot of dogs do well on any type of food just makes you think about what you are buying 

If I remember correctly the head of the fish is the most nutritional part and contains nutrients that the flesh doesn't contain... so just because it is something we don't eat, doesn't mean that it's no good. 

And the eys will see  him through the week 

[JeffD]

It seems to me the main ingredients are fish head and skins, with a smaller percentage of flesh.
Obviously the cost is the main thing.

Dogs will eat anything but what goodness are they getting from the food? That to me is the first thing to consider. A lot of dogs do well on any type of food just makes you think about what you are buying 

If I remember correctly the head of the fish is the most nutritional part and contains nutrients that the flesh doesn't contain... so just because it is something we don't eat, doesn't mean that it's no good. 

And the eys will see  him through the week 

 

[Sheryl]

I'm sorry but if my food label says 70% white fish, that's what I would be expecting, not fish heads and skin. I understand how nutritional they are but I would still want to know that is what they use so I can make an informed choice. As an owner of a dog susceptible to pancreatitis, I wouldn't feed skin of any kind to her and I would rather use a food that is clear and concise about exactly what goes in that food.

However, that is just my opinion based on what I feel is right for my girls......

[JeffD]

Sheryl, if you are worried about the amount of skin in the food I would check with the supplier as " White Fish" is a name normally used to describe the type of fish such as cod, haddock, pollock etc so this could be the whole fish, if it is just the flesh it would be described as white fish fillet.

[Sheryl]

No, I'm not chick. I know exactly what the girls eat

I was talking about the OP who was worried about the colour of the Wainwrights wet fish she bought. I was just passing comment that it sometimes isn't as simple as being able to let your dog eat anything. I agree with you though Jeff. She may need to clarify if it is just 70% fillet if that is what she thought she was buying...and what she prefers

[carol pearson]

Well, thanks for all your comments and opinions, this is a brilliant forum.

Sheryl has summed it up, has it says 70% white fish (I am probably being a bit naive here but) I would expect some flesh, although I know not all fish flesh is white.
I don't have a problem with heads or skins, Ozzy has the dried fish skins has treats.

I think I was a bit shocked with their reply, they also mention "frames and trims" not sure exactly what the frames would be but take it to mean back bones etc.

I know most dogs can eat almost anything but I have to be careful because of his sensitive tummy. Which is why he eats mainly fish and why I queried the colour of this food. We have tried other fishy wet foods but they are usually a light beige colour, WWs was a very, very dark brown.

I have tried different foods for him, even raw, but he seems to be settled on fish.

I will not be giving him the WWs wet food. Although I have to say he has WWs dry salmon and potato for breakfast and this food helped to get his stomach sorted. I just like him to have a wet food for tea (that's just me).

JeffD, thanks for the link to orijen food, it reminded me that we tried a sample of this about 18 months ago and at the time it did not suit him
but it may be worth trying again has his stomach is now much more settled.

Dog food is such a minefield.

Once again thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.



 

[BobnDot]

We feed our Chaz on Orijen and Milly on Acana, both are from a Canadian company, Champion Petfoods and we source ours online from Zooplus.

Orijen is very high in protein and may not be the best for Ozzy but I'd suggest looking at Acana, it's not so high in protein but is still made with the same high quality ingredients and their Acana Pacifica Dog Food is still grain free, contains 55% fresh fish and deemed suitable for sensitive dogs....http://www.zooplus.co.uk/shop/dogs/dry_dog_food/acana/grain_free/132052

It may seem costly compared with other dog foods but, as it contains no bulking ingredients, the amount fed per day is quite small. We feed Milly, our 12.6 kilo adult female show cocker, 130g a day over two meals which means that a 13 kilo bag contains 100 days of food and, at £62-90 delivered, that's just 63p a day.

May be worthwhile giving one of the smaller pack sizes a go but, if you do, remember to change over very slowly taking at least ten days to complete the process.

Bob.