Grain Free Dog - To Feed or Not To Feed? That Is THE Question!

Grain Free Pet Food - To Feed Or Not To Feed  - That is THE Question

By Mark E. Rogers - Green Dog Promotions, LLC

Much has been said recently in the media and medical circles about the alarming increase in obesity in humans and their companion animals, cats and dogs.  The number and severity of deleterious health conditions that result from the general state of obesity appear in many cases to be consistent across species.  Some of the more serious conditions include but are not limited to; diabetes, heart and other cardiovascular diseases, liver disease, pancreatic disorders other then diabetes, kidney disease, and increased joint stress.  The near epidemic incidence of obesity in humans has lead to numerous scientific studies and dietary recommendations, diet plans and medications.  Many diets and medications make far reaching and amazing claims of near instant success and prey upon peoples emotions with promises of beautiful outward appearances and overnight good health.  One very useful concept, founded in science, that has arisen out of this flurry of science and emotion that has been made popular by the “Atkins” and “South Beach” diets and is now the basis of many “medical breakthrough diets” and “Gimmick Pills” is the Glycemic Index (GI).  The GI is a quantifiable measure of blood glucose level (blood sugar level) after consumption of a carbohydrate (sugar) containing food stuff such as bread, table sugar, fruit, grains, etc.  This article briefly addresses the GI in relation to pet foods and pet diets.

Glycemic Index

In the past, carbohydrates were classified as simple or complex based on the number of simple sugars in the molecule.  Carbohydrates composed of one or two simple sugars like fructose or sucrose (table sugar; a disaccharide composed of one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose) were labeled simple, while starchy foods were labeled complex because starch is composed of long chains of the simple sugar, glucose.  Advice to eat less simple and more complex carbohydrates (i.e., polysaccharides) was based on the assumption that consuming starchy foods would lead to smaller increases in blood glucose than sugary foods. This assumption turned out to be too simplistic since the blood glucose (glycemic) response to “complex” carbohydrates has been found to vary considerably.  A more accurate indicator of the relative glycemic response to dietary carbohydrates should be glycemic load, which incorporates the relative quality and quantity of carbohydrates in the diet characterized by the glycemic index (GI).

Measuring the Glycemic Index

To determine the glycemic index of a food, volunteers are typically given a test food that provides 50 grams of carbohydrate and a control food (white bread or pure glucose) that provides the same amount of carbohydrate on different days. Blood samples for the determination of glucose are taken prior to eating and at regular intervals after eating over the next several hours. The changes in blood glucose over time are plotted as a curve. The glycemic index is calculated as the area under the glucose curve after the test food is eaten, divided by the corresponding area after the control food is eaten. The value is multiplied by 100 to represent a percentage of the control food. For example, a baked potato has a glycemic index of 76 relative to glucose and 108 relative to white bread, which means that the blood glucose response to the carbohydrate in a baked potato is 76% of the blood glucose response to the same amount of carbohydrate in pure glucose and 108% of the blood glucose response to the same amount of carbohydrate in white bread . In contrast, cooked brown rice has a glycemic index of 55 relative to glucose and 79 relative to white bread. In the traditional system of classifying carbohydrates, both brown rice and potato would be classified as complex carbohydrates despite the difference in their effects on blood glucose levels.

Physiological Responses to High- versus Low-Glycemic Index Foods

By definition, the consumption of high-glycemic index foods results in higher and more rapid increases in blood glucose levels than the consumption of low-glycemic index foods. Rapid increases in blood glucose are potent signals to the beta-cells of the pancreas to increase insulin secretion. Over the next few hours, the high insulin levels induced by consumption of high-glycemic index foods may cause a sharp decrease in blood glucose levels (hypoglycemia). In contrast, the consumption of low-glycemic index foods results in lower but more sustained increases in blood glucose and lower insulin demands on pancreatic beta-cells.

Glycemic Load

The glycemic index compares the potential of foods containing the same amount of carbohydrate to raise blood glucose. However, the amount of carbohydrate consumed also affects blood glucose levels and insulin responses. The glycemic load (GL) of a food is calculated by multiplying the glycemic index by the amount of carbohydrate in grams provided by a food and dividing the total by 100. Dietary glycemic load is the sum of the glycemic loads for all foods consumed in the diet. The concept of glycemic load was developed by scientists to simultaneously describe the quality (glycemic index) and quantity of carbohydrate in a meal or diet.

Dog and Cat Food 

Kibbled dog and cat food is perhaps the most popular type of food fed to most companion animals.  The reasons are obvious.  It is convenient and cost effective for those who do not have the time, money, or knowledge to do a raw diet that would most closely resemble what a feline or canine would eat in the wild.  They are generally formulated so that, at the very least, they meet the minimum requirements established by AFCO (American Association Of Feed Control Officials) to provide the quantities of nutrients that are considered essential to keep an animal alive.  These minimum AFCO requirements do not in any way reflect the quality, bio-availability, or sources of these nutrients, or their effect on the overall health of the animal.   However, there are hundreds perhaps thousands to choose from and the manufacturers use clever marketing and advertising campaigns to appeal to the emotions of the pet owner and are unfortunately not always as concerned with the welfare of the animal as they would have you believe.  Many use inexpensive sources of protein and fat (such as meat of unknown or questionable origin), and fillers and binders such as grains, potatoes, tapioca, legumes etc.  These fillers are of questionable digestibility, nutrient availability, and may have a deleterious effect on the metabolic health of the animal.  These fillers are, by their very nature as plant products, high in carbohydrates and starch.  This is where the problem arises when considering the GI and GL of a particular kibbled food.

Until recently, most kibbled foods contained some type of grain product that served as both a binding material to hold the food together, and an inexpensive source of energy and nutrients.  They are not necessarily bad for the animals but they are not a main staple of a carnivores natural diet.  A new trend has developed that preys upon a common misconception that grains are a major source of allergies in dogs and to a lesser extent cats.  This is evidenced by the explosion of “grain free” foods now available.  The fact is that food allergies in dogs account for less then 10% of allergic conditions.(5-8) The marketing and advertising campaigns for these foods would have one believe that the “grain free” diets are much closer to a “wild and natural diet.”  This could not be further from the truth.  The most common replacements for the grains are potatoes and tapioca, and less often peas.  The tubers and peas are not found in the “wild diets” of carnivores.  

The idea being forwarded by the manufacturers of these foods is that your dog or cat will not suffer from allergies any longer.  Recall the incidence of food allergies is less then 10%!  The truly alarming feature of these grain replacements is that they are, in most incidences, worse for the animal in relation to their GI then the presumed problems from allergies to grains.  See the accompanying table at the end of this article for some values of the GI for various grains and “grain replacements.”  

As discussed previously, the GI of a carbohydrate source has a direct and pronounced effect on the blood sugar response to a food.  Potatoes and tapioca have a very high GI as does rice and several other carbohydrate sources.  Many are similar to feeding sugar itself!  This will effect the health of a companion animal far more then the allergy the animal is believed to experience from grains or other ingredients in the pet foods.  The high “bounce” of blood sugar and insulin response to high blood sugar is a far more serious problem then allergies that are often misdiagnosed as being caused by food stuffs!  Diabetes, obesity, pancreatitis, kidney failure, and other conditions that arise from eating high GI foods are far more deadly then the most common symptoms of allergic reactions.  The bottom line is that starch is starch, and starch is sugar!  So why not feed a starch free food?

Most raw diets are by their very nature are starch free.  Most of the commercial raw diets are either frozen or dehydrated.  However, their cost is often prohibitive to the average pet owner.  So what is the concerned pet owner to do?

Fortunately, recent technological advancements have allowed for the production of kibbled diets that contain meat percentages far greater then any seen in the past.  Many of these diets rival their raw diet counterparts.  A new line of foods developed by Wysong Corporation is actually a completely starch free kibbled canine and feline diet!  The line is called Epigen™, and is available in a 60% meat (three flavors) and 90% meat (chicken formula)!

Since a dog or cat food diet that consists of feeding the same kibbled food everyday has a relatively consistent formulation, the GL of the diet is consistent as well and can be determined using the formula above and the total values and forms of carbohydrates as provided by the manufacturer.

Glycemic Index of Selected Foods  

Food Stuff	Preparation Method	GI (Relative to Glucose)
Sweet Corn	Boiled	55 (Average)
Corn Meal	NA	55
White Rice	Boiled	82 (Average)
Brown Rice	Boiled	75 (Average)
Wheat	NA	60 (Average)
Barley (Pearled)	Boiled	25 (Average)
Oats (Rolled Uncooked)	NA	59
White Potato	Baked	111
White Potato	Boiled	78 (Average)
Tapioca	Steamed	70
Blueberries	Boiled	53
Sucrose (Table Sugar)	NA	65
Glucose	NA	100

Source: Sydney University Glycemic Index Service

General references used in preparing this manuscript:

1. Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University
2. Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats, National Research Council, The National Academic Press 2006.
3. Encyclopedia of Canine Nutrition, Royal Canin - Source IVIS.
4. Early Nutritional Management to Reduce The Risk of Diabetes and Obesity, The IAMS Company - Source IVIS.

1. Proceedings of the North American Veterinary Conference, Orlando, FL, January 2007 - Source IVIS.
2. Proceedings of the Southern European Veterinary Conference, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 30 - Oct. 3, 2010 - Source IVIS.
3. Personal Communication Steve Milden, VMD Delaware Valley Veterinary Hospital, Mullica Hill, NJ.
4. Whole Dog Journal Volume14, Number 4, April 2011.

In-Store Pet Food Promotions: Are you doing your best to build a foundation of loyal customers and retailers?

In difficult economic times, setting your brand/product apart becomes more important than ever (brand differentiation).  Often, this is accomplished through in-store promotions via sampling, discount coupon offerings, and other brand incentive offerings.  However, is this really the route to take when trying to generate a new or stronger (loyal) customer base and build a strong relationship with the retailers?  Let’s look at some of the basic pitfalls of this type of approach.

In-store sampling or incentive discount offerings to those who are already shopping at a given retailer can inspire customers to try your product and, perhaps, ultimately switch to your brand/product. This may be well and good for your brand/product but, ultimately, does little for the retailer. It does nothing to enhance retailer customer base and therefore, does nothing to forward his ultimate end of bringing in new customers and new dollars and growing. In-store pet food solicitation merely switches current customer dollars from being spent on one product to another.  The end result is simply a product swap and, in the case of lower margin from one product/brand to the next, perhaps evens a loss.

Word of mouth (WOM) advertising is generally agreed upon to be the strongest driving force in customer loyalty to a brand or product.  In store marketing programs while they may encourage customers to temporarily switch to your brand and, even eventually stick with it, does little to reinforce the sort of grass roots brand recommendation/advocacy that is at the heart of WOM advertising.  A customer who is ready and willing to switch brands based on one discount incentive offering or an in-store sample is not showing the kind of brand/product loyalty that is going to ensure a long term relationship with a manufacturer and is not likely to produce the type of WOM that builds a new customer base built on product quality and integrity.  This type of customer - one is easily swayed to your product - one day can be just as easily lured away by a better incentive from another manufacturer at a future in-store promotion.  In the pet food industry, where competition is fierce and new product lines are quickly put on the shelf and duplicated, an attitude of  “what are you going to save me today?” develops and customer loyalty is fickle at best.

Finally, and just as importantly, no retailer/manufacturer trust is built through these programs.  Again, few, if any, new retailer customers are generated and actual purchase dollars can actually be diminished.  Further, trust in brands/products and retail stores are effectively built through loyalty and consistency.  If a retailer recommends a product one week and the next week, sides with the in-store promoter (even if by merely by allowing the in-store promotion!), the trust that has been built by the retailer and confidence in a brand/product is lost.  This can result in a loss of loyalty to the retailer on the whole and the customer simply following the “best deal in town” trail.