Victor dog food.

[Rowco Beagle Kennels]

What are you guys paying for it?

[heavy]

$31.00 for 40lbs, 24/20

[ken pack]

RED bag

[steve w]

Purple bag 26/18 paying a little under 29.00. I also feed the Senior to a couple old timers,that's close to 35.00, both come in 40 pound bags.

[BB Beagles]

Red bag.... $29.95

[zjamesmoore]

27 and some change for the 24/20 red bag here in Kansas.

[Chippewa01]

whats the meat ingredient? never heard of victor, always curious about new feeds...

[Casey Harner]

whats the meat ingredient? never heard of victor, always curious about new feeds...

Here you go man

http://www.victordogfood.com/

[warddog]

I have read and reread this Victor site and studied the ingredients of the red, green, and purple bag feds that they produce. I will say that what I see is the very same ingredients for every one of them with the only difference being the protein/fat content. That tells me that they are merely raised by adding more of the ingredients that contribute to the total fat/protein percentages within a specific formulation. The protein within a formulation is figured by adding ALL the ingredients that provide protein for an animal together so as to have a total protein content. This is done from meat, vegetable and grain ingredients in combination. The ingredients are listed on the bag in descending order of predominance in the formulation and it is common knowledge that the first three ingredients probably comprise the biggest ingredients within the product by weight. That does NOT mean that increasing the protein percentage means the meat ingredient is increased but rather the other cheaper protein contributing ingredients can and are increased up to and including the same weight as the number one ingredient. ALL these Victor formulations cited above have the very same listed of ingredients BUT yet they have differing fat/protein rations and probably higher prices for the higher protein. In my research of Victor I found that the average cost per pound to be about .76 cents and the brand I feed about .41 cents. With me buying a ton about yearly that amounts to $700 per year more for the Victor than the brand I am feeding. As I have stated I look at the bang for my buck with my hounds that are NOT a means of providing anything for my family but rather my personal entertainment that no one else in my immediate family gets a thing from. many have opined about the mess from one brand to the other as well as what they believe to be a big nutritional difference as well as how corn is just not digestible. I have yet to see one single speck of scientific speck of proof on any of this. YES, I have read ALL the articles on the internet about the great PREMIUM dog foods and what makes them rated number one but I have yet to see one of these show me the BEEF so to speak. They are ALL opinions of someone that has not a shred of proof of what they say and in fact are probably pitching for a specific brand or brands of manufactured dog food. For those interested I have copied and pasted a controlled scientific study on the nutritional differences in Rice, Corn and Sorghum in dry manufactured dog foods. This study was performed using world wide accepted analytical standards and testing procedures in a controlled study. I think all that look at the results will clearly see that although there may be some difference among these ingredients they will be very minimal even including the quality of poo-poo coming out! This is EXACTLY what I have stated from the onset of this debate on dry manufactured dog food and what I have experienced over 30 years of inspecting the very plants that send these meat and poultry ingredients to where they become an ingredient in dry pet foods. Bear in mind this is NOT opinion but the resulting science on the nutritional value of these specific ingredients. Also the case in point is the manufacturer of Victor tries to play upon consumer's lack of knowledge by not using CORN but rather uses SORGHUM which according to the science is more of the same as far as dog food ingredients. By the way I'm not wondering what that beef, chicken and pork MEALS are in their formulation as I already know it is the very same that is in ALL other different brands.


Waltham International Symposium:
Pet Nutrition Coming of Age
The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods1,2
Leanne N. Twomey,3 David W. Pethick, James B. Rowe,* Mingan Choct,* John R. Pluske,
Wendy Brown* and Maria C. Laviste†
Division of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch WA, Australia; *Animal
Science, The University of New England, Armidale NSW, Australia and †Uncle Ben’s of Australia,
Wodonga Vic, Australia
EXPANDED ABSTRACT
KEY WORDS: ● dog ● cereal ● rice ● sorghum ● corn
Rice is commonly used in premium Australian dog foods
because of its highly digestible and hypoallergenic nature (1).
Sorghum and corn are grains available in Australia that are
considerably less expensive than rice. Sorghum and corn are
known to contain starch that is less digestible in the intestinal
tract because of a strong starch–protein matrix (2); however,
the extrusion process involved in the manufacture of dog food
is likely to gelatinize the starch and make it more digestible
(3). The purpose of this study was to evaluate fecal nutrient
digestibility of diets containing rice, sorghum and corn, and to
determine the effect these diets had on fecal quality through
evaluation of fecal score.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals and diets
Eighteen mixed-breed dogs aged between 1 and 6 y were divided
into three balanced groups and fed extruded dry dog foods containing
either rice, sorghum or corn. The other dietary ingredients included
sugar beet pulp, maize gluten, vitamin and mineral mix, poultry meal,
beef tallow, sunflower oil and celite (ingredient inclusion levels
withheld by the manufacturer). The chemical analyses of the experimental
diets are summarized in Table 1. The diets contained the
digestibility marker celite (Celite Corp., Lompoc, CA) included at a
level of 2%, which was determined as acid-insoluble ash using the
technique described by Choct and Annison (4). The maintenance
energy requirement was calculated as (kJ) 460 (body weight in
kg)0.75 (5). This amount was increased by 20% to ensure the dogs
maintained their body weight, and then used to calculate the amount
of food offered daily using the metabolizable energy concentration of
the diets (6).
Testing procedures
The University of New England Animal Ethics Committee approved
all procedures conducted during the trial. The trial was
conducted over 12 d, following an adaptation period on a commercial
dry dog food of 4 wk. The diets were introduced over the first 4 d, and
fecal samples were collected on the final 5 d of the trial period. Fecal
scores were measured with a score of 1 (indicating hard dry feces) and
a score of 5 (indicating diarrhea), using the Waltham Feces Scoring
System (Waltham Center for Pet Nutrition, Leicestershire, UK).
Chemical analyses
The fresh fecal samples were dried at 80°C until constant weight
was achieved, then the samples from the 5-d collection period for
each dog were pooled and ground through a 1-mm mill screen. The
total starch of the feed and feces was determined enzymatically using
the Megazyme Total Starch Assay Kit (Megazyme Australia Pty.,
Warriewood, NSW, Australia). The gross energy content of the diets
and fecal samples was determined using a DDS isoperibol calorimeter
(Digital Data Systems, Johannesburg, South Africa). The nitrogen of
the feed and fecal samples was determined using a Leco Nitrogen
Analyzer (FP-2000, Castle Hill, NSW, Australia). The crude protein
content was calculated as N 6.25. The fat content of the fecal
samples was analyzed by the Soxhlet extraction procedure using
AOAC Official Method 991.36 (7). The fat content of the feed was
analyzed after acid hydrolysis by the Soxhlet extraction procedure
using the AOAC Official Method 954.02 (7). Soluble and insoluble
nonstarch polysaccharides and free sugars were determined by a
combination of the methods of Englyst and Hudson (8) and Theander
and Westerlund (9). Nutrient digestibilities were determined
using the ratio of marker to nutrient in the feed and feces.
Statistical analysis
The data were analyzed using the statistical package StatView 5.0
for Windows (AddSoft Pty., Woodend, Vic, Australia). A one-way
ANOVA measure of the mean values of the 5-d collection period was
performed for each group (n 6 per group), followed by a Bonferroni/
1 Presented as part of the Waltham International Symposium: Pet Nutrition
Coming of Age held in Vancouver, Canada, August 6–7, 2001. This symposium
and the publication of symposium proceedings were sponsored by the Waltham
Centre for Pet Nutrition. Guest editors for this supplement were James G. Morris,
University of California, Davis, Ivan H. Burger, consultant to Mars UK Limited, Carl
L. Keen, University of California, Davis, and D’Ann Finley, University of California,
Davis.
2 Supported by The Australian Research Council.
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: twomey@central.murdoch.edu.au.
0022-3166/02 $3.00 © 2002 American Society for Nutritional Sciences. J. Nutr. 132: 1704S–1705S, 2002.
1704S
Downloaded from jn.nutrition.org by guest on February 2, 2014
Dunn test to compared treatment means. Differences were considered
significant at values of P 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
There was a significant effect (P 0.05) of treatment group
on the mean fecal scores (Fig. 1). The rice diet caused a higher
mean fecal score compared to that of the sorghum and corn
diets, indicating that the feces of the dogs in the rice group
were looser. However, the mean fecal scores were all within
the ideal range according to the Waltham Fecal Scoring System,
and therefore the inclusion of corn or sorghum as the
major cereal grain in the food did not negatively affect fecal
quality.
The fecal starch digestibility was not different among treatment
groups (P 0.05), with each diet having 100% fecal
starch digestibility (Table 2). This indicates that the extrusion
process used in the manufacture of the diets gelatinized the
starch in the sorghum and corn diets and made it readily
digestible (3). The fecal protein and gross energy digestibility
coefficients were different for each treatment group (P
0.01). The fecal protein and gross energy digestibility coefficients
were highest with the rice diet, followed by the sorghum
and corn diets, suggesting that the rice diet was the most
digestible (1). The higher gross energy digestibility of the rice
diet resulted in the increased digestible energy content of the
rice diet compared to that of the corn and sorghum diets (P
0.001). The fat digestibility of the rice diet was also greater
than that of the corn and sorghum diets (P 0.01) (Table 2).
The nutrient digestibilities of the corn and sorghum diets
were lower compared with that of the rice diet. However, the
nutrient digestibilities of each diet were above the average
digestibility values for commercial dog foods (6). The fecal
score results did not reflect the nutrient digestibilities, with the
corn and sorghum diets causing firmer feces, although the dogs
on each diet all had ideal fecal quality. Because fecal quality is
one of the most important factors by which dog owners judge
the quality of a dog food, and the nutrient digestibility results
were above the accepted industry standard, extruded sorghum
and corn are good alternatives to rice as the primary cereal
grain in dog foods.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Costa, N. D. (1997) Nutrition of the dog: an Australian overview. In:
Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia (Corbett, J. L., Choct, M., Nolan,
J. V. & Rowe, J. B., eds.), pp. 117–129. The University of New England, Armidale,
NSW, Australia.
2. Murray, S. M., Fahey, G. C., Jr., Merchen, N. R., Sunvold, G. D. &
Reinhart, G. A. (1999) Evaluation of selected high-starch flours as ingredients
in canine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 2180–2186.
3. Camire, M. E. (1998) Chemical changes during extrusion cooking.
Recent advances. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 434: 109–121.
4. Choct, M. & Annison, G. (1992) The inhibition of nutrient digestion by
wheat pentosans. Br. J. Nutr. 67: 123–132.
5. Harper, E. J. (1998) Changing perspectives on aging and energy
requirements: aging and energy intakes in humans, dogs and cats. J. Nutr. 128
(suppl. 12): 2623S–2626S.
6. National Research Council. (1985) Nutrient Requirements of Dogs.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
7. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (1985) Official Methods of
Analysis, 14th ed. AOAC, Washington, DC.
8. Englyst, H. N. & Hudson, G. J. (1993) Dietary Fiber and Human
Nutrition, 2nd ed. (Spiller, G., ed.), pp. 53–71. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
9. Theander, O. & Westerlund, E. (1993) Dietary Fiber and Human Nutrition,
2nd ed. (Spiller, G., ed.), pp. 77–98. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
TABLE 1
Cereal and chemical composition of the diets1
Rice Corn Sorghum
g
Rice 49.0 0 0
Corn 0 51.0 0
Sorghum 0 0 46.1
Total NSP2 30.5 31.2 52.5
Insoluble NSP2 26.4 26.4 47.6
Soluble NSP2 4.1 4.8 4.9
Starch 389.1 381.3 397.7
Protein 264.6 276.2 265.7
Fat 143.8 149.6 146.6
MJ
Gross energy 20.2 20.3 20.4
ME (calculated)3 16.6 16.6 16.5
%
Moisture 6.1 6.4 5.8
1 Values are expressed as g/kg DM or MJ/kg DM.
2 NSP, nonstarch polysaccharides.
3 ME, metabolizable energy.
FIGURE 1 Mean fecal score for each treatment group. Values are
means SEM, n 6, P 0.05 from ANOVA.
TABLE 2
Nutrient digestibility coefficients and digestible energy
content of the experiment diets1
Rice Corn Sorghum
Starch 1.00 4 103 1.00 3 106 1.00 2 105
Protein 0.87 0.003a 0.83 0.004b 0.85 0.003c
Gross energy 0.90 0.003a 0.85 0.005b 0.87 0.003c
Fat 0.97 0.001a 0.97 0.001b 0.96 0.002b
Digestible energy
(MJ/kg DM) 18.07 0.05a 17.32 0.10b 17.73 0.06c
1 Data are means SEM, n 6. a,b,c Different superscripts in the
same row indicate a significant difference (P 0.05). Significance of
treatments: starch digestibility (P 0.05), protein and gross energy
digestibility (P 0.0001), fat digestibility (P 0.01), digestible energy (P
0.0001).
SORGHUM AND CORN IN DOG FOODS 1705S
Downloaded from jn.nutrition.org by guest on February 2, 2014

[BB Beagles]

Well, as I dozed off reading that science report, I had a dream.........
It was about normal guys who have use trial and error method on dry feed and a chosen what there hounds do well on. Whether it be VICTOR, Purina, Sport Mix, Diamond, etc.
WARDOG I am not saying you aren't knowledgable in the area of scientific ratios of ingredients, but I'm starting to feel like, post after post on dog food, you are wanting somebody to say, WARDOG, you are absolutely correct! If that's what your needing to hear, well.... WARDOG you are absolutely correct. NOW! do ya feel better. Okay!
Now, again all these guys post on VICTOR, including mine are opinions! Based on trial and error method. To these guys including me, have had good results with VICTOR. Like I said before until it changes I will continue to buy it. If you think the .41 cent per pound stuff is better then feed it! I'll continue to feed my .76 cent per pound stuff.

I'm not a scientist, biologist, chemist, by no means, so I'll say it in hillbilly terminology!

Run what ya like, feed what ya like!
And I like VICTOR!!!!

[warddog]

BB beagles YOU can feed whatever you want and spend whatever you want as that is your prerogative. I have posted not a single thing that is not correct. I really don't care if you pay $10.00 per pound for "Laura's Lean" ground beef at the grocery store when you can buy the very same ground beef for $2.99 per pound that is your choice BUT unlike some folks on here I am only trying to help folks understand what is inside ALL the fleecing of consumers with advertising due to a lack of consumer
understanding of the products they buy. If you like any brand of dry dog food by all means FEED it and I've never knocked nor have I promoted a specific brand BUT FACTS are whether anyone wants to believe it or not they are ALL made basically the same. AGAIN not knocking any specific brand and I could give two cents whether you want to say you are right or you are wrong but for the couple of you that seem to get your panties in a wad I continue to get numerous PM's asking even more info. DO what YOU want but maybe some people like to come on here to gain some info with some basis to it other than some spouting opinion that just aren't fact. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. BB AGAIN I tell YOU to feed what you BELIEVE in, as your money is your money, I could care less BUT it seems there are folks interested in the science or the facts behind how dog food manufacturers rip the unknowing consumers off with misleading labeling and advertising. I have no interest in any specific brand of dog food nor do I care what one personally feeds, period, as I have fed nearly everyone of them, myself.

[Rowco Beagle Kennels]

I do want to get in anybody's argument. I believe Victor is good dog food. My problem is that the prices quoted are not that low in my area (easter NC); and we feed a lot of hounds including pups and not sure we can afford it. I would probably try it if I could get it for the prices that you guys quoted. Bobby

[BB Beagles]

Rowco, there is no arguement. I say pricing is diff because Victors plant is based out of Texas and the distance of shipping might make a diff or that certain vendor might be price gouging too. Idk?

Wardog, I will try to get out by what I'm meaning in another way.
Example... I've rode in Ford's, Chevys, and Dodges. They all have basically the same components to make them work the same way. They all to the same thing. They all get you from point a to point b. But yet they all vary in price. So why do certain people prefer one over the other. I personally choose Chevy. Why. Trial and error. And in that Chevy is what I use to go pick up my Victor dog food.

Again I'm not saying your research is wrong, I'm just trying to say if it's the same as others, I've had better results with it.

[HillBeagles]

I am no scientist but i did do a little experiment of my own. I have feed victor for close to two years now with no complaints, but the American in me wanted to try something new, and with all the hype surrounding Purina Pro Plan i figured why not give it a shot, so while continuing to feed five others dogs Victor Hi Pro Plus 30-20 i took a sixth and started it on Purina Pro Plan Sport 30-20, i continued this for 3 months having great success with both, i did not notice a difference in stamina, both feeds gave the dogs a nice shiny coat, and their wheight held up under heavy running conditions, and no noticable difference in their stool, so for me it boiled down to one simple thing and thats my wallet, Pro Plan Sport 36pnds $49.95 -VS- Victor Hi Pro Plus 40 pnds $36.95 and i also switch to Victor Select Pro 26-18 in the spring and summer for $30.95, thats a $13 to $19 dollar a bag difference. So for me its VICTOR HI PRO PLUS 30-20 in the winter and VICTOR SELECT PROFESSIONAL 26-18 in the summer. The only thing i would like to try at this point is Victor GF Yukon River Salmon & Sweet Potato 33-15 or Victor GF Ultra Pro 42-22 these are the Grain Free brands.

[swing]

Warddog, I know your not promoting any dog food company, but what food do you think gives the most bang for the buck? And what do you feed your dogs