[atravis]

A few things-

"meal" in and of itself is not a horrible thing. Its the QUALITY of meal that makes the difference, and you always want it to be a named meat source. For instance, a food that uses "chicken meal" or "lamb meal" is generally using a high-quality ingredient. A food using "meat meal" or "by-product meal" or "poultry meal" is not.

Corn, wheat, and soy should be avoided at all cost in your dog's food. He is a carnivore, and while he CAN process a portion of those ingredients in a cooked form, his body is putting much more work into the digestion than he is getting back from what little nutrients they provide. In short, not worth it at all. Plus corn is one of the highest allergens in dogs.

COOKED grains are also digestible, can provide some nutrients, but on the whole not necessary. If you feed a grain-inclusive food, try to only look for ones that use things like brown rice or oatmeal, as they are generally consider higher quality and more nutrient dense than white rice.

Royal Canin is terrible, avoid if at all possible. Their "breed specific" formulas are nothing short of a joke, and for the ingredients they use, should be charging MUCH less for the food. Way overpriced for an inferior product.

Some people have differing opinions on puppy formulas, but I ABSOLUTELY recommend you stick to a puppy line for at least the first year of life. If not, be very careful to select an appropriate all-life-stages food with the correct calcium/phosphorus numbers. Your puppies food should have less that 1.5% calcium, and less than 1% phosphorous, else you run the risk of bone growth-spurts, which can be very painful for a puppy.

ETA:

I am not familiar with NuVet.

I am also not a fan of dogfoodanalysis.com. They are painfully out of date, and IMO prone to bias. They are also run by a Boxer forum, who while may have good options and are worth listening too, are hardly a "reputable" source. While not ideal, I still greatly prefer http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/

 

[atravis]

Whatever you do don't take advice like this.

Excuse me? And posts like this are helping the OP how?

If you disagree, then you might want to consider enlightening us to WHY that is.

 

[atravis]

Ha.... haha. Ok, now I get it.

If you want to be believe dogs are designed to digest corn, and that they ACTUALLY gain anything from eating it, then you go right on ahead believing. I don't need a peer reviewed studdy to tell my dog is a CARNIVORE, with the digestive tract of a CARNIVORE, designed to process meat, not corn or grains.

Dogs have survived thousands of years WITHOUT processed corn meals and glutens in their diets. The very fact that the corn absolutely MUST be cooked in order for them to gain anything at all from it, is proof enough of that. I don't see many wild dogs cooking their food, but maybe I'm missing out on something here.

I'll stick to raw, thanks, minus the corn. I suggest anyone else feeding their dog, kibble or otherwise, do the same.

 

[atravis]

Just because they CAN, does not mean they SHOULD.

Dogs can eat sawdust too, doesn't mean they should

 

[atravis]

I read no propaganda, never heard of either of the people you mentioned, though I would LOVE to see studies showing that captive wolves liver BETTER, HEALTHIER lives on corn-inclusive kibbles.

Longevity means nothing to me. Unless studies have ALSO been done on feeding appropriately balanced cooked and raw diets, as well as grain-free, corn-free diets, then the results they get from feeding corn-inclusive foods means nothing. All it does is prove that dogs/wolves/whatever can survive on such foods. Which I'm not debating they can't.

BUT, for many people, myself included, simply "surviving" is NOT the same thing as thriving.