Sign in or Register
Search Forums
Recent Topics
-
What’s the Best Food Option?
by Mobassir Ahmed
1 day, 8 hours ago
-
FREE 1lb Prime100 SPD Fresh Roll
by Prime 100
1 week, 2 days ago
-
Small breed for a cocker
by Nathan Convey
1 week, 6 days ago
-
Supplement recommendations for Cushing’s Disease?
by Paul
3 days, 1 hour ago
-
Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
by Kate G
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Recent Replies
- nathaniel reid on Orijen Senior
- nathaniel reid on FREE 1lb Prime100 SPD Fresh Roll
- nathaniel reid on Something’s Wrong at Wellness or Amazon
- Wewe Re on Ration balancing software
- Paul on Supplement recommendations for Cushing’s Disease?
- nathaniel reid on Ultimate Pet Nutrition Nutra Thrive
- nathaniel reid on Cane Corso lipomas
- nathaniel reid on 4health and other Dental chew info
- Jez Doh on Cat Lane review
- Jez Doh on Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
- nathaniel reid on Struvite Treats?
- nathaniel reid on Best Dog Food Reviews In 2024
- nathaniel reid on Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
- Hazel willia on What supplements should dogs have daily?
- Hazel willia on Ultimate Pet Nutrition Nutra Thrive
Thanks Aimee for the link and additional info on meat. I guess I didn’t read far enough to learn that the meat vs. bone rules are different for poultry.
It’s still bugging me that the 3.15% figure for phosphorous seems too high if they are using just meat, organs, and bones for the ingredients. It seems like the phosphorous can’t be that high without the calcium being even higher than 3.91%.
From my research on the calcium and phosphorous content of meats and bones, the duck meat should have a phosphorous content of only about 0.6% (dry matter) and the organs a little higher, but still barely over 1%. And of course very little Ca for the meat and organs. The Ca:P ratio of bone is generally between 2.0 and 2.5. So when I crunch numbers I just can’t figure out how they could have gotten to 3.91% and 3.15%. If they are using bone to get the P that high then the Ca should be much higher, yet they have conveniently ended up with a 1.2:1 Ca:P ratio. But, I’m probably missing something, and my comps are fairly crude, especially for the organs. So . . . it’s probably possible with the listed ingredients, but I have a nagging feeling that things don’t add up. Please speak up if you see any flaws in my numbers/logic.
Even if the 3.91% and 3.15% figures are possible with the listed ingredients, they are still high enough to possibly be a health concern in my mind, even though they have kept the Ca:P ratio at 1.2:1. They are way over the AAFCO maximums of 1.8% and 1.6%. Welcome your thoughts. M&C
Sign in or Register
Search Forums
Recent Topics
-
What’s the Best Food Option?
by Mobassir Ahmed
1 day, 8 hours ago
-
FREE 1lb Prime100 SPD Fresh Roll
by Prime 100
1 week, 2 days ago
-
Small breed for a cocker
by Nathan Convey
1 week, 6 days ago
-
Supplement recommendations for Cushing’s Disease?
by Paul
3 days, 1 hour ago
-
Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
by Kate G
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Recent Replies
- nathaniel reid on Orijen Senior
- nathaniel reid on FREE 1lb Prime100 SPD Fresh Roll
- nathaniel reid on Something’s Wrong at Wellness or Amazon
- Wewe Re on Ration balancing software
- Paul on Supplement recommendations for Cushing’s Disease?
- nathaniel reid on Ultimate Pet Nutrition Nutra Thrive
- nathaniel reid on Cane Corso lipomas
- nathaniel reid on 4health and other Dental chew info
- Jez Doh on Cat Lane review
- Jez Doh on Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
- nathaniel reid on Struvite Treats?
- nathaniel reid on Best Dog Food Reviews In 2024
- nathaniel reid on Search for Great Quality, Small sized dry kibble.
- Hazel willia on What supplements should dogs have daily?
- Hazel willia on Ultimate Pet Nutrition Nutra Thrive