EVO

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:25 pm

You have to email most companies to find out the ash content.

User avatar
Shes Got Heart
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: T-Town OK with my smiley girl
Contact:

Postby Shes Got Heart » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:04 pm

I've been feeding EVO mixed in with some of her old food for close to a month now and shes in great shape. Here in a couple weeks she'll probably just eat the evo. Shes dropped pounds and made up for it with muscle and her ACL leg has gained a lot of muscle. I like. I also add fish oil and glucosomine.

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

Postby kaliya5 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:42 pm

jlphilli wrote:You have to email most companies to find out the ash content.


I emailed TOTW and their ash content is:
9.5% for both the High Prairie and Wetlands formulas and
8.5% for the Pacific Stream.

EVO lists everything on their website and theirs is around
11.1% for poultry formula and only
8.7% for the red meat formula.

Still waiting to hear back from Wellness.

EVO red meat seems to be as good or better in terms of ash than TOTW. EVO poultry's ash content is higher, but is this percentage significant clinically? I know 1.5% can be significant in some things :dunno:

All this talk about ash percentages raises a thought for me though. I feed less on EVO than any food I've ever tried. The reason is, of course, the higher protein, around 42%. I currently feed the EVO poultry but if I switched to TOTW which has 25-32% protein depending on the formula, then (in theory) I would feed more food to my dogs. Not a ton more, but surely they would eat a slightly larger quantity to maintain their bodies. If they ate a larger quantity of food to maintain their weight and muscle... then wouldn't they be getting the same amount of ash from TOTW in terms of total quantity? Even though the percentage is lower, if they eat more of it that lower ash difference is kind of a moot point.

I'm just trying to understand all this. I just want to know how significant clinically these amounts are and if there is any real reason to switch if my dogs are thriving on their current diet. The OPs make a valid point about the dangers of high mineral concentrations but since comparing the numbers, and taking into account that the higher quantity that would likely be fed, TOTW doesn't seem any less dangerous than EVO. I'll be interested to see what Wellness says when I hear back.

User avatar
retro
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:22 am
Contact:

Postby retro » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:27 pm

kaliya5 wrote:
EVO red meat seems to be as good or better in terms of ash than TOTW. EVO poultry's ash content is higher...




the evo chicken formula is also higher in calcium than the evo red meat formula.

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

Postby kaliya5 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:01 pm

So I finally got all the ash, calcium and phosphorous info from the food companies. I am gathering here that the "goal" is to get as much protein from the food as possible while minimizing as much as you can the amounts of fat, overall ash, calcium and phosphorous (as well as other minerals). A food can be low in ash... but also low in protein. High protein means, usually, higher ash. So I put all the info in excel and looked to see what the ratios of protein to fat and mineral content were for the 3 brands that were discussed earlier. So in the chart, a 2.5 means (roughly) that there is 2.5 times as much protein in the food as there is fat/calcium/etc. Wellness Core- Poultry came out on top as having the most protein with least ash, followed by EVO-Red Meat in a close second. All 3 TOTW formulas came in at the bottom, but this is due to their lower protein content. Still, with less protein, you'd think it would have had the least ash and fat, BUT Wellness had less fat and ash than TOTW and more protein too. According to the company, TOTW Prairie and Wetlands formulas have virtually identical nutrition info, so I lumped them together.

Image

And yes, I'm a huge nerd. I know lol

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:59 pm

To accurately do what you did above, you need to include all of the other mineral values (magnesium, iron, zinc, potassium, etc etc). I think Natura lists all of that on their site under "Nutrient analysis."

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:00 pm

I forgot to add that it is particularly important because most fish-based foods will be much higher in magnesium than others, so it could change all of your values. :thumbsup:

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:02 pm

Blah! Sorry for the triple-post; I'm trying to multi-task.

You also need to look at all of those values as mg/kg instead of percent since that can very between volume and density of each kibble.

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

Postby kaliya5 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:16 pm

The coveted TRIPLE POST!! lol :thumbsup:

You are right, there are many more minerals to consdier. I had originally compared more than the minerals above b/w EVO and TOTW. EVO has a complete analysis on their site and TOTW sent me theirs in an email but Wellness only provided ash/calc/phos... plus the speadsheet would have been HUGE! I'm a big enough nerd as it is. But yes, the magnesium and selenium (sp) I imagine would be very diferent in fish based formulas.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:07 am

kaliya5 wrote: I feed less on EVO than any food I've ever tried. The reason is, of course, the higher protein, around 42%. I currently feed the EVO poultry but if I switched to TOTW which has 25-32% protein depending on the formula, then (in theory) I would feed more food to my dogs. Not a ton more, but surely they would eat a slightly larger quantity to maintain their bodies. If they ate a larger quantity of food to maintain their weight and muscle... then wouldn't they be getting the same amount of ash from TOTW in terms of total quantity? Even though the percentage is lower, if they eat more of it that lower ash difference is kind of a moot point.


Watch the fat content for the answers to these questions... not the protein content. Protein and carbohydrates have the same number of calories, but fat has double the calories.

Bottom line is Calories = weight gain or loss... not protein vs. carbohydrates


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests