Dog Food Advisor Forums Mike Sagman

Mike Sagman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 237 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Orijen #112253 Report Abuse

    Unlike recalls, lawsuits are based on complaints and accusations only. And when they result in a settlement, the truth or falsehood of the allegations are usually not revealed to the public.

    Each of our reviews is based upon the factual information we retrieve from government-regulated and standardized pet food labels… and nothing else.

    If you’ll Google the name of almost any major brand, you’ll likely find hundreds of complaints, claims and lawsuits for many of their products.

    Once any dog food has been confirmed to have a serious problem, the FDA expects the related company to voluntarily recall its product.

    Until we know with certainty if a particular dog food has been tested and recalled, it would be unfair and irresponsible for us to consider unverified claims when writing our reviews.

    in reply to: Orijen/acana lawsuit (see Admin comment below) #112235 Report Abuse

    Unlike recalls, lawsuits are based on complaints and accusations only. And when they result in a settlement, the truth or falsehood of the allegations are usually not revealed to the public.

    Each of our reviews is based upon the factual information we retrieve from government-regulated and standardized pet food labels… and nothing else.

    If you’ll Google the name of almost any major brand, you’ll likely find hundreds of complaints, claims and lawsuits for many of their products.

    Once any dog food has been confirmed to have a serious problem, the FDA expects the related company to voluntarily recall its product.

    Until we know with certainty if a particular dog food has been tested and recalled, it would be unfair and irresponsible for us to consider unverified claims when writing our reviews.

    in reply to: Site Change #112227 Report Abuse

    Hi Richard,

    Sorry you feel our site has changed. For the only noteworthy change we’ve made has been the recent introduction of our 5 new “Feeding Type” lists (recommended recipes grouped together by age and breed size).

    In any case, I can assure you that we have never received (or would we ever accept) any compensation from any dog food manufacturer. Ever.

    What’s more, since the referral fee we receive from Chewy (a retailer, not a manufacturer) is based on a fixed dollar amount, the fees we do get have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of any product.

    Like you, we’re finding it increasingly difficult to find dog food brands that meet each of our published guidelines and yet that can also be considered low priced.

    Unfortunately, many of the better brands we recommend have chosen to stop selling their products through online discount retailers.

    The overwhelming majority of our Editor’s Choice brands have not changed. However, their pricing and availability has.

    We realize this is a challenge for many (including members of our own team). So, thanks to the many tips and suggestions we receive from our members, we’ve been able to steadily increase the total number of dog foods on our “Budget Friendly” list from just 21 (back in 2014) to about 51.

    And we’re always looking for more.

    By the way, just because a dog food is rated 4 or 5 stars does not automatically entitle it to a place on our Editor’s Choice lists.

    Please keep in mind that there are (currently) over a thousand reviews containing some 4300 individual dog foods on our website. And more than 360 products are rated 4 stars or higher. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection… currently, just 84 brands and sub-brands.

    There are many reasons a particular brand may not be included on our lists.

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information when we ask.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company (more common than you’d think).

    Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, we welcome any suggestions you or others may have. And if they meet our guidelines, we’ll be happy to include them.

    Thanks for being a member for so long. It’s loyal members like you that have made it possible for us to avoid brand advertising and the destructive influence the pet food industry would have on the independent nature of our reviews.

    in reply to: Horizon Brand New Food Called Taiga #112184 Report Abuse

    We’ll be reviewing Horizon Taiga sometime in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, I cannot yet provide any guidance on this product until we’ve had a chance to load the recipe and Guaranteed Analysis into our spreadsheet.

    With IBD and since this recipe appears to be heavy in legume (and fiber) content, I’d be inclined to ask your vet before purchasing.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Dog Food Brands not listed #112172 Report Abuse

    In-depth company reports are only available for Editor’s Choice brands and sub-brands. Halo is reviewed on our main (free) website and is not currently an Editor’s Choice selection.

    Company reports are not available for Halo or for any other non-Editor’s Choice product.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Dog Food Brands not listed #112171 Report Abuse

    Please keep in mind that currently, there are more than 340 dog foods rated 4 stars or higher on our website. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection — currently, just 72 brands and sub-brands.

    There are many reasons a particular brand may not be included on our lists.

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, you should be able to find a more detailed answer to your question and many others on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page as well as our How We Rate Dog Foods FAQ page, too.

    in reply to: Editors Choice List Not helpful #112139 Report Abuse

    Thanks, crazy4cats. Excellent point and suggestion.

    in reply to: Editors Choice List Not helpful #112136 Report Abuse

    EVO is an excellent suggestion. However, the product has been discontinued and is now being phased out by the company.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Editors Choice List Not helpful #112135 Report Abuse

    I agree. Your observation about a larger dog’s inefficiency in eating smaller kibbles is correct. I’ve seen this myself.

    However, since this thread is entitled “Editor’s Choice List Not Helpful”, I decided it would be more appropriate to answer this question from the perspective I used.

    No website has the financial or human resources to actually visit multiple stores over a large geographic area, buy a package of every one of the kibbles available and then measure the size of the pellets.

    What’s more, kibble size is one of the most inconsistent variables of each batch of dry dog food.

    Bottom line… If a pellet falls out of a dog’s mouth while eating, the puppy can always pick it back up and try again. No big deal.

    However, if a dog owner chooses a large (pellet size) kibble that contains excessive calcium, a genetically predisposed animal has a significantly greater risk of developing a crippling form of hip dysplasia.

    Hope this makes sense.

    in reply to: Editors Choice List Not helpful #112129 Report Abuse

    Kibble size affects palatability only. Nothing else. Kibble size has zero effect on the nutritional value of any food.

    Calcium, phosphorus and calorie ratios are critical for a large or giant breed puppy and should take precedence over the size of the kibble.

    My recommendation: Use the Custom Search link and select the Type 2 – LG Br Pup option and check the “Dry” feature. This will remove canned and raw foods from the list. I found 43 individual recipes that would be suitable for your Saint Bernard puppy.

    And there are many more if you’ll select a recommended brand or sub-brand you like and choose one that meets AAFCO profiles for either Growth or All Life Stages AND contains the words “includes the growth of large size dogs”.

    Another suggestion: Avoid switching to an Adult Maintenance food until your puppy reaches 24 months.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Search engine #111509 Report Abuse

    Hello Jerry,

    Thanks for the suggestion. The plugin we use to create our search function only has 2 possible settings for the default operator… AND or OR.

    I just switched the setting from AND to OR. Please try it and let me know if that helps. Or if that makes it worse.

    Thanks again for taking the time to post your suggestion. Awaiting your reply.

    Please keep in mind that currently, there are more than 340 dog foods rated 4 stars or higher on our website. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection — currently, just 72 brands and sub-brands.

    There are many reasons a particular brand may not be included on our lists.

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, you should be able to find a more detailed answer to your question and many others on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page as well as our How We Rate Dog Foods FAQ page, too.

    Regarding the controversial website you referenced in your comment…

    Until *** becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.

    in reply to: Wanting to change kibble #109604 Report Abuse

    To protect those readers who may be less informed regarding some of the topics introduced into this discussion, please respect and do not ignore my previous message:

    “Until *** becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.”

    Thanks for your cooperation. This thread is now closed.

    in reply to: Suggest a Budget-Friendly Dog Food #109148 Report Abuse

    Hi Joyce,

    I’m sorry you had trouble contacting us. Our Support Desk never received any messages from you. A full refund has been issued and your account has been closed.

    Since you posted your personal email address and to protect your privacy, I have removed your comment.

    Hope this helps. Have a wonderful holiday and a Happy 2018.

    Mike

    in reply to: question I just noticed that all of the foods #105881 Report Abuse

    Ray Q,

    Thanks for your question.

    Every one of the 1000+ reviews on this website includes the following disclosure clearly and transparently posted within each article:

    “… we do not accept money, gifts or samples from pet food companies in exchange for special consideration in the preparation of our reviews or ratings.

    “However, we do receive a fee from Chewy.com for each purchase made as a direct result of a referral from our website. This fee is a fixed dollar amount and has nothing to do with the size of an order or the brand selected for purchase.”

    Please keep in mind, Chewy is a retailer. Not a manufacturer.

    We have NEVER received any money from any company that manufactures any pet food we review. So, how could there be a conflict of interest?

    By the way, please also notice that there are no display ads for any pet foods anywhere on this website. We made this COSTLY decision over 9 years ago to prevent any suggestion that we have ANY conflict of interest in doing our work.

    I am closing this thread because this question has already been answered transparently and conspicuously throughout our website many times over the last 9 years.

    Thanks again for your interest and for being a member.

    in reply to: Merrick owned by Purina #105558 Report Abuse

    Hi Daphne R.,

    Thanks for your comment. Purina purchased Merrick on July 21, 2015 (over 2 years ago).

    Initially, we, too, had some concerns. But so far, the merger appears to have had only positive effects on their products.

    Please keep in mind that corporate buyouts occur in the business world all the time, even within the pet food industry. In many cases, the additional resources of the larger company can help improve the products of the smaller one.

    Smucker recently bought Big Heart Pet Brands (Meow Mix), Mars took over Natura Pet (California Natural) and a Brazilian company just purchased Chiquita Brands (bananas).

    None of us has any way to forecast the ultimate results of this or any other similar corporate event. It’s simply too early to know.

    In any case, we’re not expecting any immediate impact on the quality of the company’s products — at least not right away.

    By the way, as explained on our website, our reviews are based entirely upon the legally verifiable information published on government-regulated pet food labels only.

    And nothing else.

    Our ratings have nothing to do with recall histories, legal findings, corporate mergers and buyouts, rumors, lawsuits, customer service incidents, ingredient sources, processing temperatures or any other variable.

    So far, it appears Purina was smart this time and kept most of the original Merrick team and the products appear to be of the same quality. We’re impressed at how responsive the leadership and personnel have been each time we’ve contacted the company when we have questions.

    We still really like this company. As with all our Editor’s Choice selections, if we see any serious changes, we’ll be sure to remove the brands from our lists.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Best protein in dry food for sensitive stomach? #105141 Report Abuse

    YaDoggieJacob,

    Thanks for your post. However, please take a moment to review our Commenting Policy which states:

    “…if you have a vested interest in a business, please do not use this website as a means to distribute free samples or coupons, offer discounts or conduct product marketing and/or website promotional activities.”

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    in reply to: No raw foods for editor's choice? #104886 Report Abuse

    Hi Barbara,

    We currently list various versions of 3 raw dog food brands in our Editor’s Choice members area:

    Nature’s Variety
    Primal
    Stella and Chewy’s

    Although there are other raw foods that get 4 or more stars on the regular website, none of them meet all our requirements for Editor’s Choice. You can find most of these guidelines listed in this article:

    An Insider’s Guide to Finding Superior Dog Food Brands

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Toxins and *********** Project #104815 Report Abuse

    Until *** becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.

    in reply to: Toxins and *********** Project #104813 Report Abuse

    Until *** becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.

    in reply to: ********************* #104639 Report Abuse

    Due to recent discourteous exchanges between certain participants, some comments have been removed. This thread is closed until further notice.

    in reply to: ********************* #104484 Report Abuse

    Batch analysis ratings posted by ********************* and other similar websites can certainly be helpful.

    However, we recommend readers exercise a reasonable degree of caution when relying exclusively on these kinds of reports.

    That’s because when testing any pet (or human) food, the results can differ from day to day and vary significantly based on the specific farm or batch used as a source for any individual ingredient.

    As with any laboratory study, it is absolutely critical to take a statistically significant (large) number of test samples from multiple batches to avoid a potentially misleading variable known as sampling error. You can read about that important subject here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_error

    In addition, guidelines used for interpreting the results can also be changed or manipulated. This can cause certain products to be move from one rating to another. And even from “best” to “worst” lists. This has apparently already been a problem. You can read about that issue here:

    https://wagbrag.com/clean-label-project-best-and-worst-pet-food/

    Giving any one brand a sweeping endorsement (or rejection) based on the sampling of one single batch taken from one individual product line at one point in time could be misleading and provide a false sense of security (or concern) regarding positive test results.

    Even with fresh human foods (like strawberries or beef), there can be significant differences associated with test results from one batch of raw materials to the next, many times related to the soil conditions of one plot of land versus another from the same region.

    What’s more, conclusions drawn from single batch testing can produce important inconsistencies. For example, on the website you reference, when you use the search box for specific brands (like Nutro, Orijen, Purina, and others), you’ll find 5-star, 3-star and 1-star individual recipes (products).

    Try doing the same thing for other brands (like Nature’s Variety or Canidae) and in many cases, you’ll get similar results.

    It would seem to us that the fairest way to draw accurate conclusions regarding food testing would be to collect test samples from multiple batches from different lots and collected over an extended period of time.

    Otherwise, we could unfairly judge the safety of one food and give a misleading thumbs up for another.

    Bottom line?

    We commend *** for its efforts. And we look forward to learning more about how its findings compare with those of others… especially to test results verified by independent third parties, peer-reviewed studies and those of the companies themselves.

    Yet we’re also concerned about ***’s lack of complete transparency and its failure to share actual test results with the public on its website.

    In any case, until each batch is tested by every company with results posted on every label…

    And since there’s no way of knowing which “top-rated” recipes could unexpectedly contain hidden contaminants and become the low-rated brands of tomorrow…

    We continue to urge pet owners to practice the commonsense risk reduction strategies associated with the menu diversification and diet rotation methods favored by this website.

    Until *** becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Mike Sagman.
    • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Mike Sagman. Reason: "Bottom line" section added to conclusion of comment
    in reply to: Is the site back up? #104114 Report Abuse

    Hey Guys,

    For some unexplained reason, the “Replies” widget that that powers our bbPress Forums has experienced a bug. It appears the problem started sometime around last Friday.

    In addition, the techs who maintain our website are closed for the 3-day holiday.

    They hope to be able to fix this issue sometime tomorrow. Until then, it will be a challenge for any of us to monitor discussions.

    In the meantime, you can still start new topics or post replies.

    Thanks for your patience.

    in reply to: Nature's Variety Raw Boost – New Formula? #101556 Report Abuse

    Agrolimen SA began investing in Nature’s Variety in July 2014 (about 3 years ago) and completed its purchase on May 11, 2016 (over a year ago).

    Company ownership information has always been available to Editor’s Choice members. If you are a member, simply click on the column labeled “Company Report” for the latest data.

    Regarding product quality… please keep in mind that corporate mergers occur in the business world all the time — including within the pet food industry. In many cases, the additional resources of the larger company can help improve the products of the smaller one. And sometimes, they don’t.

    Smucker recently bought Big Heart Pet Brands (Meow Mix), Mars took over Natura Pet (California Natural) and a Brazilian company just purchased Chiquita Brands (bananas).

    None of us has any way to forecast the ultimate results of this or any other similar corporate event. It’s simply too early to know.

    In any case, we’re not expecting any major impact on the quality of this brand. In fact, so far, these products continue to earn our highest ratings.

    By the way, as explained throughout our website, our reviews are based entirely upon the legally verifiable information published on government-regulated pet food labels only. And nothing else.

    One more thing… Nature’s Variety Instinct Raw Boost is scheduled to be updated within the next 30 days. Hope this helps.

    Kristi,

    Thanks for your post. However, please take a moment to review our Commenting Policy which states:

    “…if you have a vested interest in a business, please do not use this website as a means to distribute free samples or coupons, offer discounts or conduct product marketing and/or website promotional activities.”

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    in reply to: 5 star dog food #96714 Report Abuse

    I found only 2 errors (Merrick Classic and Primal Freeze Dried) and they have now been corrected. If you find any others, please let me know. Thanks.

    in reply to: 5 star dog food #96481 Report Abuse

    Hi Jon C.,

    Thanks for the tip. Sometimes, when we update a review, we inadvertently fail to also update the ratings column in the Editor’s Choice lists. It would be helpful if you could let us know which dog foods have you discovered discrepancies?

    As soon as you share with us the exact location of each error, we’ll correct it right away. Thanks for reporting this issue. Much appreciated.

    By the way, beginning some time in the next 40 days (or so), we will be adding a number of improvements and upgrades to the Editor’s Choice section. This will include the custom search feature you mentioned in your comment. I’m sure you’ll find it helpful.

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #95358 Report Abuse

    Stan C,

    Thanks for your suggestion. Like every nomination we get here and by way of our special “Suggest a Dog Food” form found in the footer of every page on this website, we consider every suggestion that QUALIFIES for our ultra-select Editor’s Choice recommendation.

    In addition, the company must also (at the very least) meet our minimal requirements to be reviewed on our website.

    Please check the 2 links I have included in this particular comment. And you should be able to see why the brand you suggested doesn’t meet minimal criteria to even be reviewed on our website.

    For example, we’re unable to find a single food product anywhere on the Soul’y website that shares critical and standardized FDA-compliant label information. Most notably, there appear to be no Statements of Nutritional Adequacy Statements. And no other assurances from the company that any of these foods are “complete and balanced” for a specific AAFCO nutrient profile.

    By the way, in general, raw dog foods are notorious for not providing full and complete FDA compliant label information — or making any effort to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles. In fact, many of these foods are simply not complete and balanced.

    In addition, like many other raw dog foods, the Soul’y products have only limited regional distribution. So, they would only be available to very few of our readers and members.

    Lastly, because we receive more than 100 review suggestions in an average week, our small team does not allow us enough resources to reply to every recommendation.

    With our Editor’s Choice nominations, each suggestion could have its own reasons that it fails to meet our guidelines (as detailed in the links above). With over 1,000 suggestions in this thread alone, it would be impossible for us to provide a detailed reply to each comment we get.

    In any case, even though we do not have the resources to provide a detailed response, please be assured we frequently scan these suggestions for new ideas.

    Thanks for taking the time to make this suggestion.

    in reply to: USDA pet food regulations GUTTED #94439 Report Abuse

    If you love your pets, then the content of the video referenced in this thread is disturbing.

    I’m not yet sure what all this means. According to the video, it appears that some USDA information may have been removed from the Agency’s website. I hope this is only an honest mistake and not the beginning of some kind of public information censorship by the government.

    In any case, I am not aware of any change to pet food labeling regulations (so far).

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #93656 Report Abuse

    Hi Heidi,

    During a recent update, we inadvertently concluded our analysis by restricting our recommendation of this puppy food to smaller breed puppies when in fact it is appropriate for ALL puppies.

    However, per our calculations and reported in our review, the energy-weighted nutrient content of 3.8 grams of calcium for every 1000 calories as fed is well within the range of up to 4.5 grams of calcium per 1000 kcal.

    We’ve now corrected the text. Thanks for calling this to our attention.

    in reply to: Free-range / Cruelty-free #92168 Report Abuse

    Hi Julia,

    We welcome the casual mention of links to any other legitimate website.

    However, please be sure to respect our Commenting Policy which states:

    “We do not allow spam of any kind. This includes the repeated posting of links to any website in which you have a vested interest and for the apparent purpose of promoting that site.

    “If we suspect a user is posting here in promotion of any prohibited activity, all comments previously posted by that user will be subject to immediate removal.”

    Because you posted 9 comments promoting your product in just 78 minutes, your remarks were flagged by some of our readers as “spam”. For this reason, we were compelled to remove 8 of them.

    In the future, please limit your promotional activity in these forums.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    in reply to: I'm confused by the Editors Choices #91460 Report Abuse

    Charan C.,

    You asked, “On your original reviews the dog food has a lower rating or higher rating than your editor’s choice review rating. Are you keeping up with your own ratings system or do you have someone to verify updates when they happen.”

    It is impossible to verify any dog food the moment it happens. That’s because pet food companies introduce new recipes all the time. And they intentionally delay updating their websites — many times, months after the changes are made.

    What’s more, they make no effort to alert their customers — or even review sites like The Dog Food Advisor.

    That’s because they must allow time for current retail stock to be absorbed by the market place to prevent the confusion of different recipe availability for consumers.

    We visit and update every review on our website at least once every 18 months. Editor’s Choice reviews are monitored monthly and are updated once every 6 months.

    In addition, as we state in every review on our website, “We rely on tips from readers. To report a product change or request an update of any review, please contact us using this form.”

    Since we update individual recipes within Editor’s Choice at least very 6 months, you may occasionally find a dog food product line review on our public website that has not been modified since its last update. That’s because product line reviews are updated on an 18-month cycle.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: I'm confused by the Editors Choices #91451 Report Abuse

    Robert H. and Jeff H.,

    Our star ratings are based solely on the content of the dog food label. Nothing else. Yet there’s a whole lot more to know about a dog food than what’s printed on the label.

    Please keep in mind that there are many products with 5-star label ratings made by companies who never test their products for nutrient content, disease-causing bacteria (like Salmonella) or for deadly mold toxins.

    To make our Editor’s Choice list, dog foods can be rated 3, 4 or 5-stars BUT they must also meet many other criteria as outlined in the following articles and FAQs on our website:

    An Insider’s Guide to Finding Superior Dog Food Brands

    Frequently Asked Questions About Editor’s Choice

    Never buy any dog food unless you first contact the company and ask each of the following 3 important questions:

    1. Who makes your dog food (so you can track its recall history)?

    2. Where do you get your ingredients? You especially want to know if they get any of their protein-based ingredients from China or other countries known for their inferior food quality standards.

    3. Do you test your foods for nutrient content, disease-causing pathogens (like Salmonella), and mycotoxins (mold toxins).

    We realize most people don’t have the time or the patience to do all that important research work — which is precisely why we created Editor’s Choice in the first place.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: I'm confused by the Editors Choices #91450 Report Abuse

    Kathleen,

    You said: “I would like to know why Cesar dog food is listed in the online site under the Tuscan Naturals brand when I’m checking for ingredients. Is there some kind of relation between the two companies that make the food? I know I’ve heard Cesar is not a very good brand.”

    I’m unable to reproduce your issue.

    We do not list dog foods anywhere on this website relative to their specific ingredients. If you search using the general search box for a specific ingredient, then a mix of different products and different brands will be included in your search results.

    in reply to: Pioneer Natural #88174 Report Abuse

    Hi Lynn,

    Please keep in mind that currently, there are more than 340 dog foods rated 4 stars or higher on our website. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection. Currently, just 21 brands.

    There are many reasons why a particular brand may not be included on our lists. And we are particularly cautious with small batch and raw dog foods (as testing and science based design are typically minimal or non-existent).

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, you should be able to find a more detailed answer to your question and many others on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page as well as our How We Rate Dog Foods FAQ page, too.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Blue pit and terrible skin allergies. #87998 Report Abuse

    Hi Marie,

    We welcome the casual mention of and links to any other legitimate website.

    However, please be sure to respect our Commenting Policy which states:

    “We do not allow spam of any kind. This includes the repeated posting of links to any website in which you have a vested interest — and for the apparent purpose of promoting that site.

    “If we suspect a user is posting here in promotion of any prohibited activity, all comments previously posted by that user will be subject to immediate removal.”

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    in reply to: Editor's Choice with less than 5 stars? #87635 Report Abuse

    Our star ratings are based solely on the content of the dog food label. And there’s a whole lot more to know about a dog food than what’s printed on the label.

    Please keep in mind that there are many products with 5-star label ratings made by companies who never test their products for nutrient content, disease-causing bacteria (like Salmonella) or for deadly mold toxins.

    To make our Editor’s Choice list, dog foods can be rated 3, 4 or 5-stars BUT they must also meet many other criteria as outlined in the following articles and FAQs on our website:

    /choosing-dog-food/brand-guidelines/
    /frequently-asked-questions/about-editors-choice/

    Never buy any dog food unless you first contact the company and ask each of the following 3 important questions:

    1. Who makes your dog food (so you can check the real recall history)?

    2. Where do you get your ingredients? You especially want to know if they get any of their protein-based ingredients from China or other countries known for their inferior food quality standards.

    3. Do you test your foods for nutrient content, disease-causing pathogens (like Salmonella), and mycotoxins (mold toxins).

    We realize most people don’t have the time or the patience to do all that important research work — which is why we created Editor’s Choice.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Can't suggest a review d/t its web address #87633 Report Abuse

    Hi Jenn,

    Be sure to enter the full URL including the http:// prefix in front of it. Like this:

    http://www.example.com

    That should fix your problem.

    in reply to: Please, help me ! #87467 Report Abuse

    Hello Triet,

    As this article explains, calcium and phosphorus level must remain within a critical range in order to decrease the risk a puppy will develop hip dysplasia later on in life. Adding a supplement to a properly balanced puppy food could easily increase the calcium and/or phosphorus content to a level that’s beyond the maximum safe dose.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #87100 Report Abuse

    Hi Dog Pack Mom,

    Thanks for your question. And thanks to DogFoodie for her reply, too.

    I can see why you’d like to know the reason why we remove some products from our lists. And in most (but not all) cases, you should be able to find the reason a specific product has been removed by visiting our “Product and Recipe Monitor” logs located within the Editor’s Choice members area.

    By the way, this question comes up so frequently, I’ve posted my answer on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page. And I’ve copied it again below within this comment:

    To keep the list short enough to be useful to our readers, we may sometimes be compelled to remove one good brand to make room for another more deserving one.

    So, deleting a company from the list should not be interpreted as the discovery of some new or crucially important flaw.

    Choosing brands for Editor’s Choice is based on as many facts as we can put together. And we’re perfectly willing to disclose those facts when appropriate.

    However, it’s also based upon subjective opinion, insider tips, hunches and everything else we might privately know at any point in time. And sharing these notions publicly without proof would be irresponsible — unfair to the companies and misleading to readers.

    For legal and ethical reasons, we will never knowingly publish any unprovable (non-factual) opinion about any company anywhere on this website just to appease a reader’s curiosity or expectations for an explanation.

    To ensure our ability to add or remove brands from Editor’s Choice without concern for legal liability, we must reserve the right to keep much of the rationale we use to make these decisions private.

    Hope this makes sense.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by Mike Sagman. Reason: Added "thanks" to DogFoodie for her reply
    in reply to: Bravecto (chewable flea and tick) #86948 Report Abuse

    Yes, C4D. Giving this feature a test drive. The only problem so far appears to be that “nested” replies are indented so much that they can be challenging to read on a mobile phone. At least, when the phone is held in regular portrait position.

    In any case, that problem can be remedied by holding your phone sideways in landscape position.

    Let’s give this feature a try and see how it goes.

    in reply to: Bravecto (chewable flea and tick) #86931 Report Abuse

    Testing threaded comments

    Hi Laurie,

    Please keep in mind that currently, there are more than 340 dog foods rated 4 stars or higher on our website. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection. Currently, just 21 brands.

    There are many reasons why a particular brand may not be included on our lists. And we are particularly cautious with small batch and raw dog foods (as testing and science based design are typically minimal or non-existent).

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, you should be able to find a more detailed answer to your question and many others on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page as well as our How We Rate Dog Foods FAQ page, too.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #86893 Report Abuse

    Red ingredients are not all bad. They are only controversial. Corn would be a good example. You may find SOME 4 and 5-star dog foods that contain a FEW red items. But they’re typically minor issues.

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #86889 Report Abuse

    Hi Mick,

    Of course, Brothers Complete is a top tier (5 star) dog food.

    However, by design, our goal is to limit the number of Editor’s Choice selections to about 20 or so brands.

    The following text is taken directly from our Editor’s Choice FAQ:

    “There are many reasons a particular brand may not be included on our lists.

    “For example, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    “In some cases, we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    “And finally, we may simply be unfamiliar with a particular brand. So, feel free to nominate a company you believe we’ve overlooked.”

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Nominate a Brand for Editor's Choice #86867 Report Abuse

    Hi Bindy,

    Please keep in mind that currently, there are more than 340 dog foods rated 4 stars or higher on our website. Yet (by design) Editor’s Choice includes a much smaller selection. Currently, just 21 brands.

    There are many reasons a particular brand may not be included on our lists.

    For example, in most cases, a company may not have met all our guidelines. Or more rarely, its agents may have been unwilling to reveal important manufacturing information.

    Or we may be aware of unfavorable information about a company. Or we may have received tips from industry insiders that disqualify certain brands from inclusion on our lists.

    In any case, you should be able to find a more detailed answer to your question and many others on our Editor’s Choice FAQ page as well as our How We Rate Dog Foods FAQ page, too.

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: Puppy Food #86795 Report Abuse

    Hi Nancy,

    There is no one “best” puppy food. After all, how could there be a one-size-fits-all dog food that would be right for every puppy?

    Also, be sure to keep in mind that any food that we rate 5 stars might only be 3 stars to your particular puppy. Dogs are a lot like us humans. What’s good for one of us may be terrible for another.

    For example, some 5 star foods might be too “rich” for some dogs. They may contain too much meat for some animals. Those pets would probably do better with a 3 or 4-star food that contains less meat based protein and fat and slightly more carbs than another.

    My best advice: Use dietary biofeedback to answer your question.

    Buy a small package of any of our Editor’s Choice recommended puppy foods. And transition gradually over to that product. Next, monitor your dog’s response to that food. Are her stools normal? Does she like it?

    Then, if necessary, adjust your choice. There’s no need to force any food on any dog. If a 5-star dog food doesn’t work for her, then move on… just like you would for any member of your human family.

    Hope that makes sense. Good luck on your choice.

    in reply to: peanut butter #86698 Report Abuse

    Thanks for answering that, Crazy4Cats. Here’s a link to an article we posted a few years ago warning about the dangers of xylitol:

    /red-flag-ingredients/xylitol-dog/

    Hope this helps.

    in reply to: calorie #86426 Report Abuse

    To be clear: this is the standard method described by the Association of American Feed Control Officials on its website. And it is an appropriate answer to the question posted by the creator of this thread.

    The member wanted to know how we calculated the “calorie-weighted basis” displayed in the dashboard table of every review on this website.

    in reply to: calorie #86421 Report Abuse

    Thanks for your question. There are at least 2 ways to compute the calories weighted nutrient content of any food. I like to use what’s called the “modified Atwater method”. You can read more by clicking the following link to the AAFCO website.

    http://petfood.aafco.org/Calorie-Content

    By the way, I’m planning to add an easy-to-understand article about how to perform those calculations for our readers here on DFA — sometime in the not too distant feature.

    Hope this helps.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 237 total)