Just noticed tonight that Natura made some formula changes on their website, some significant.

I have been looking into California Natural Lamb & Rice but was concerned that it only included Omega 6 (Chicken & Rice contains both with a ratio of 6 to 1) . Even Natura's literature states that Omega 3 should be included with Omega 6 because of 6's pro-inflammatory nature.

Sent Natura an email last Monday to clarify this. Still no reply. So before I sent them another email, I wanted to check my numbers again. Here are some of the changes I saw in the Lamb & Rice (from Monday to Thursday):

Omega 6 - changed from 4.20 to 2.52
Omega 3 - changed from zero to 0.07
(still makes it a ratio of 36 to 1 - my understanding is that it should be 10 to 1 or less)
Calcium - changed from 1.49 to 2.17
Phosphorus - changed from 1.01 to 1.55

Saw changes in many of their formulas. These were just the ones I was interested in for my follow-up email to Natura.

thanks for the heads up.

Wow, that's a large increase in calcium. Looks like California Natural can be taken off the list of foods acceptable for puppies. I wonder where the 0.07% n-3s came from? That's practically still 0%. I wonder if they added a new ingredient.

Someone else suggested they could now have more accurate testing equipment. That could explain the Omega 3 going from 0.00 to 0.07 (but doesn't cover the huge jump in calcium). Their ingredient listing did not change.

Natura did add new processing equipment so that they could manufacture EVO.

On another note - some of those who have PM'd me, have complained that Natura's customer service has become much less responsive lately.

Ahh, the more precise equipment probably is responsible for the slight increase in n-3's. I guess they just upped their calcium supplements. I wonder what their rationale was for that?

Sorry guys I don't think it is that simple.
Looks to me like Natura really changed their formulas. Innova adult is significantly different, and I don't think I will continue feeding it beyond the bag I already have.

They have lowered the meat content and raised the grain content as evidence by the level of just about every amino acid has dropped considerably. The overall carbohydrate content rose from 40% to over 45% percent carbs. It is no longer one of the lower-carb foods on the market, it is just average as far as carb/grain content goes. They also significantly cut the Omega fatty acid content of Innova Adult. It used to contain 4.38% Omega 6 and .63% Omega 3's, which ranked it up in the top 2 or 3 commercial kibbles when it came to EFA content. It now contains only 2.94% Omega 6's, and .62% Omega 3's, a considerable drop.

But the most disturbing change is in caloric density. Somehow they have managed to keep the caloric density the same per cup, at 557 kcal/cup. But the kcal density per pound has gone down significantly. Innova Adult used to contain 1895 kcal per pound, now that figure has dropped to 1667 kcal/pound. That equates into over 7500 LESS kcal per bag, or about 13.5 fewer cups of food per 33# bag.

So less meat, more grains, less EFA's, less food/calories for the same price = no thanks.

Its too bad too, I only needed to buy one more bag of it to get my free bag. Maybe I'll go tonight and snatch up a couple bags before they get the new formula in.

That's why I always go by kcals/weight...it's much more accurate. YOu can change the shape and density of a piece of kibble to get the desired kcal/cup.

That's a shame about Innova. A store recently started selling it and I was going to try it again. I guess not now, I think I like my Premium Edge better. If anything, I may try Canidae (also recently sold here).

I reposted Chewdog's analysis on i-dog and recieved this response:

I just got off the phone with a Natura rep. He said they have not made any changes. He said the changes on the site reflect the results of their latest nutritional analysis taken from their new processing plant ( which they have had for about a year and a half). He said the food is the same as it has been, but the old numbers reflect an analysis that is about 7 years old.

It's really great that we have been using numbers that haven't been updated in 7 years. How safe is it to feed a food when you are going by one set of nutritional numbers, when actually they are significantly different?

I thought Truth-In-Advertising at least applied to some of the super-premiums, especially Natura. How wrong I am!!!

This is really distressing :(

I have long counted Natura as one of the forward-thinking, reputable dog food companies, but this has certainly raised some red flags. When they first released EVO I talked to one of their customer service people for about 45 mins. He went on and on about how you'd never see Natura products advertised, or find them on grocery store shelves because thats not why they were in the business etc. etc. He said it was all about optimal health for companion animals and integrity yadda yadda yadda. And yeah, I listened and believed.

I guess they changed their minds :(

And I was just about ready to start our cat on the Innova Evo Feline. Now I am having serious second thoughts about the company.

Since I was the henny-penny (The sky is falling, etc.) who started this thread, I want to be the first to apologize for over-reacting. I want to go through all of the above accusations against Natura point-by-point.

Poor customer service response - This afternoon, I spent almost an hour on the phone with Natura's Customer Service Supervisor, Rory Thorpe, even after their office was closed. We went through all of my concerns (and some of yours). And, if I have any more questions, Rory gave me his personal email, so I could bypass the company's general customer email system.

Formula changes - There have been NO formula changes. The food that you are feeding now is the same as you have been feeding. The numbers have changed due to the new accuracy they can measure the ingredients with their new equipment. Rory is emailing me a company memo from Peter Atkins (Natura's VP and nutritionist) explaining why the numbers changed and how they are much more accurate - in fact much more accurate than any others in the industry (this memo will also go into great detail explaining the kcal issue).

Slow website updates - Rory apologized for this, saying that in the past few months with the tremendous interest, manufacturing, and distribution of EVO, they have put the website on the back-burner, so to speak. It is just being updated with the new, much more accurate numbers.

Quality issues - Natura's two plants, in California and Nebraska, have just received the highest certification from the federal government that a food manufacturing plant can receive - human or pet food.

I'll update you as soon as I get the emailed memo from Natura. Am I satisfied? Absolutely!!! :cheers2:

I recieved and email from Peter Atkins, who is Natura's President and head nutritionist. He reitterated that there have been NO formula changes. He said a big reason for the changes in their published guaranteed analysis info is that the old data was based on an actual production run of their food, rather than based on the minimum guaranteed levels. He said that the regulators now want all food manufacturers to publish their MINIMUM guaranteed analysis info, not the guaranteed analysis from an actual production run. The previous published info that Natura had been using was from an actual production run, which Natura says will always be higher than their minimum guaranteed levels. Mr. Atkins stated that Innova Adult's minimum guaranteed nutrient level is stated as 24% protein and 14% fat, but he says the food they actually manufacture is formulated at 26%/16% that is why the data from an actual run, which is what they published in the past, will always be higher than their guaranteed minimum levels, which is what they are now being asked to publish.
Mr. Atkins actually went on to say that since they formulate Innova Adult at 26/16 now, the actual levels might even be higher than the previously published info.

This is all very good news for Innova users. I guess we all jumped to conclusions when we saw the new data and figured it had to be a formula change. For once, I'm glad I was wrong.

Oh yay!!!!

This member of the angry village mob is now extinguishing her torch ;)

It's sort of worriesome though that people think they are feeding one thing (the minimum amounts printed on the website) but are actually feeding something different (in this case better) the production run amounts.

This still is a concern for calcium levels in puppies is it not?

This still is a concern for calcium levels in puppies is it not?

It would worry me.

Are you talking about Innova Adult and puppies?

If so, then no I wouldn't worry. According to the old nutritional analysis, which was based on a production run, the calcium and phophorous level was 1.1% and 1.0%, which is pretty much perfect for a large breed dog. The new data shows, 1.16% and .83%. Either way, I believe it is inside the acceptable range for large breed puppies.

If you are worried about it, just go ahead and try out one of their large breed formulas.

Are you talking about Innova Adult and puppies?



No, this concern was about the food mentioned in the original post, California Natural L&R

Calcium - changed from 1.49 to 2.17

It's sort of worriesome though that people think they are feeding one thing (the minimum amounts printed on the website) but are actually feeding something different (in this case better) the production run amounts.

This still is a concern for calcium levels in puppies is it not?

That is very worrisome. The whole premise behind me liking kibble is that you know what you're feeding. If they can be that far off, that is highly disturbing.

And I'll bet this is common practise with many companies. The have a set standard of minimum values that they print on their bags, but regulations only say they have to be above that minimum and the product could actually fluctuate wildly.

It seems that I received the same memo from Peter Atkins as Chewdog got. I don't want to give my interpretation, so here is the memo in its entirety:

"Based on the publication of the latest version of the Innova Average Nutrient Analysis data, I can understand your concern. Let me quickly state that there has been NO FORMULATION CHANGE to Innova Adult Dog food, and that the new nutrient data is a product of mathematical manipulation rather than actual nutrient changes (for the most part). Please allow me to explain further.
The original nutrient data analysis was done almost 10 years ago from production done at a different plant. Upon moving production to our own plant, we have been working to provide up-to-date nutrient data for all of our products. This new data is primarily from actual laboratory analysis of multiple samples over several production runs. What has made the numbers change so dramatically, however, is the mathematical treatment of the numbers to express the nutrient levels adjusted to the guaranteed analysis (24/14) vs. actual production numbers (26/16 +/-). NOTE: the previous nutrient analysis publication showed actual production data and LISTED the guaranteed analysis numbers instead of the actual (at the time intended to avoid confusion but now causing confusion).
So why the difference? Well, in the real world we (nor anyone else) will hit the protein & fat guarantees exactly; as a matter of fact, we actually formulate to higher levels to make sure that we stay above our minimum guarantees. As such, the typical batch of Innova Adult Dog Food will run higher protein & fat, and therefore supply the higher nutrient levels closer to the ones that were on the previous nutrient analysis sheet. In reality, the ACTUAL analytical of the product will show LESS carbohydrates and higher energy than the previous publication.
So why do this? We have been advised by regulators to express our nutrient data based on the guaranteed analysis of the product.
Sorry to have caused the confusion. I’ve heard from others with similar concerns and we may well reconsider how we publish this data.
I know this is a bit confusing, and I’m not sure that I explained it very well. So please feel free to call or email if you have any other questions or if you’d like to discuss further."
Peter Atkins, Natura Pet Products


Rory Thorp, Natura's Customer Service Supervisor sent me this memo, as a follow-up to our phone conversation. I re-emailed Rory, because I still had a couple of questions.

(1) Do we now warn against feeding CN Lamb & Rice Puppy formula to LB puppies due to the calcium percent jumping from 1.25 to 2.47 (like we now do for EVO)?

(2) If there were no formula changes, then why was Potato and Rice dropped from the ingredient listing of the Large Breed Adult formula?

I'll let you know what I hear!

(1) Do we now warn against feeding CN Lamb & Rice Puppy formula to LB puppies due to the calcium percent jumping from 1.25 to 2.47 (like we now do for EVO)?

Yes, that's nearly 250% the recommended level of calcium.

I am wondering, why are we on this Board (and others) left to do the warning?

If that level of calcium for LB puppies is indeed a concern, then why doesn't Natura feel the need or take the respsonsibility to do the warning (and not leave it to amateurs who just happen to stumble on the new numbers)?

Great question. My guess is that the research isn't 100%. There's no guarantee that 2.5% calcium will cause hip dysplasia, so I guess people feel like there isn't a need to warn. Especially considering Innova now makes a LB Puppy food, you would think they would advise customers of large breed puppies to feed that food.

Dad of Jes -

But that is my point. Natura doesn't do any advising - at least not unless we bring up specific questions and they respond by email or phone (never any warning or advising or press release on their website).

Example - when EVO came out, several of us on i-dog and this board were concerned about its percent of calcium (2.85%) and feeding it to LB puppies. The EVO bag and also their website said "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) procedures substantiate that Innova EVO Adult Dog Food provides complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages." And, that is still what the website says today.

Now, it is my understanding that when they say "all life stages" that includes puppies. So, several people wanted a clarification. First, they asked the pet store owners, then asked Natura reps. Most, if not all, said it was OK to feed EVO to LB puppies. Then, some of us contacted Natura directly, and they said that, NO, do NOT feed EVO to LB puppies due to the high calcium level. Did they ever advise the general public, by putting a warning on their literature, bags, or website? Once again, NO! It seems that only the people who read these boards are aware of the warning about EVO. And I think the same thing will be said about CN Lamb & Rice Puppy. They will advise those who specifically ask, but not everyone else who feeds, or is looking into feeding that food.

That's my true concern.

I don't/can't disagree with anything you said. It's very frustrating. I switched Jes from Iams LB Puppy to Innova Puppy. This was before they came out with a LB Puppy and before I knew anything about calcium. Now, I know a lot of people don't like Iams, but he was doing well on it, and I switched just because people told me that Innova was better. I don't think it was because of the calcium levels (which are still lower than the California Natural or Evo).

Now I don't blame the AAFCO statement just because it's a general purpose statement. It's not, and can't be expected to be, designed to fit all breeds. However, I do think the manufacturers owe it to their customers to warn LB puppy owners about the calcium issue.

I do think the manufacturers owe it to their customers to warn LB puppy owners about the calcium issue.

Some manufacturers do just that:

From Eukanuba - on their LB Puppy page:
Puppies who consume too many calories and too much calcium grow too rapidly and can develop bone growth problems. With your large-breed puppy, the goal should be a moderate, healthy rate of growth. That’s why it’s important to choose a diet with appropriate levels of fat, calcium and phosphorus, designed specifically for large-breed puppies.
To help your large-breed puppy grow at a healthy rate, look for these features: adjusted calcium and phosphorus levels to support healthy skeletal development.
Too much of one mineral can affect a puppy’s ability to absorb other minerals. And excess amounts of calcium may lead to bone growth problems especially, in large-breed puppies.

From Solid Gold - on their Wolf Cub Puppy page:
Research shows that a Calcium level of 1.5% or less is the most suitable for a large breed puppy.

From Nutro - on their Natural Choice LB Puppy page:
Balanced calcium-phosphorus for healthy balanced growth of the skeletal system. Research shows that large breed puppies have a reduced requirement for calcium and phosphorus so NATURAL CHOICE LARGE BREED PUPPY provides the ideal calcium-phosphorus ratio.

It's definitely "buyer beware" - there often seems to be a disconnect between research and marketing!

The most egregious example is "Nutro Ultra Puppy" - the company does NOT recommend this food for large breed puppies, directing anyone who calls to ask over to the aforementioned Natural Choice LB.

But what picture adorns the bag of Ultra? Hmmmm.

http://www.picvault.info/images/126589_ncup.jpeg

I have been following this thread..and I also agree with everything that is being said here....when pet food companies advertise their foods, it can be very misleading...great example...putting a picuture of a Lab pup on the bag, but the food is not suitable for large breed puppies??? Unless you are an educated dog owner...you would have no idea that this food is not suitable for growing large breed puppies...I had no idea either until I got educated from the my breeder and also my dog trainer...about calcium, protein etc. I wonder if the dog food companies don't want to come right out and make these statements for fear of losing money? That is not a good thing... :nono:

3dognite -

Good pickup on the Nutro Ultra vs. Lab Puppy photo. If the company (on the phone) doesn't recommend Ultra Puppy to LB's, then shouldn't it be in the literature or on the website (it isn't)?

Lovemylabby - Besides the companies not wanting to lose money, I think it could also be a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing (as in the case of EVO where the store owners and field reps were contradicting the main office)!

CAVEAT EMPTOR! (Geez - I finally got to use my 4 years of HS Latin!!!)

And speaking of mis-labeling the packaging with incorrect photos:

http://usera.imagecave.com/jcatkc/Bailey/beneful.gif

That must mean that Purina actually expects us to believe that Beneful is for dogs!!! (Just couldn't stop myself this morning!)

:nono: :nono: :nono:

So, my apologies in advance for the dumb question, but...

Is Innova LB Puppy still a safe bet? I see the calcium is at .94%.

I'm taking my puppy home in a couple weeks here, and I really want to be prepared with the best! :)

Thankyou.
-Mike

This is why I don't look at websites for absolutes in regards to nutritional levels. I look at the bag and determine the "dry matter" levels to know exactly what I am getting in the bag.

What you see on the bag is "as fed". You need to determine the "dry matter" percentage. To do that, you need to remember this formula.

Take the moisture percentage and subtract it from 100%. The result is the percentage of dry matter. For example, if the moisture level stated on the bag is 10% maximum, then 90% of what's in the bag is dry matter. Most dry foods are 10% moisture.

Instead of 90% think 0.90. That number is used to adjust all the other numbers by dividing them by 0.90.

For example, the Innova LB senior states 26% protein on the bag. Its actually 28.88% protein when you figure the dry matter.

The ProPlan Senior is 28% on the bag but in reality its 31.8% protein which IMO is too much for a senior dog.

So check your bag (not the website) and use the formula to determine the correct ratios. The optimum calcium for a LB puppy is about 1-1.2%.

Wow, so much information in this thread, thanks for posting it.

I have a question. where can I find simple, reliable numbers of what my dog's food SHOULD have... ?

protein, calories, omega 3, 6 ?

I need some help in understanding all of these.

Thank you so much.