Feeding guidelines based on weight?

[JustGettingStarted]

I have recently acquired a 3yo chihuahua. He's a bit larger than the breed standard at 4.3 kg, but is at a perfectly healthy weight.

The feeding guidelines on the bag of kibble say that a 5kg dog should have 95 grams a day. That really doesn't seem like a lot of food?

He's a pretty active dog - we walk for 2-3 hours a day (several walks ranging from as little as 20 minutes to as long as 2 hours, with an hour being typical.) He can just go and go and out walk me!

I can tell he's had more than enough to eat if he gets picky about treats, but I think I may have been overly enthusiastic the first few days, so I've avoided reaching that point with him since. Now I'm weighing kibble and being stingy with treats. But I don't know if I could give him a bit more?

I am still working out which pet food will be The One - I think that ratings website everyone links here is nonsense and have found info on the WSAVA guidelines. I think I'll be trying Hill's once this bag of Iams is done.

I was wondering if these guidelines take exercise levels into account? I think most toy breeds get relatively little exercise, at least compared to him.

Just wanted to add that I evaluated his weight based on being able to feel but not see his ribs, there being a defined waist from above and a bit of an abdominal tuck. He looks exactly like the silhouette of the ideal weight on the guides.

A lot of people think their dog is healthy when it’s fat - even if it looks slim from above. There was a poster a while ago who thought her Labrador was underweight - and it was overweight.

TBH 95g sounds like a lot of food. My spaniel is 11KG and has 170G a day (does 2-3hours exercise - but this is the equivalent of 170G as I feed BB). She gets more exercise than the average cocker and eats less. I still think she could lose weight tbh.

Ultimately, though without seeing a photo of your dog it’s hard to judge if he’s being fed enough!

There's no fat over his ribs as I can feel them, but they don't stick out and he's got an abdominal tuck, so I think he's a healthy weight.

His first owner just filled his small bowl with Tesco kibble twice a day, and he got some treats. He got fewer walks as he was just let out into the small back garden for most of his potties. And then he was at a healthy weight.

No back garden here, so we go out four times a day. He needs about 15 minutes to walk long enough to poo and then we can turn back so 30 minutes is a potty break. Also, as he has to mark everything a teaspoon at a time, he needs that time to empty his bladder, too. A couple of his walks are longer - an hour or even two.

Oh, what is "BB?"

I'd maybe give him a bit more make it up to 100kg if you like but 95kg is fine for a small dog. If it's a complete dry food,.

My dogs are either side of 20kg and they get about 250g, so tbh, 95g for a chi even a largish one sounds loads.

The feeding charts are just rough guides anyway, they’re a starting point and you vary from there by how your dog’s body condition is going - I’ve had dogs that need half what the packet says and dogs that need more.

I'll stick with the recommended amount and see how he gets on.

I think I'll get a snuffle matt so that his mealtime is lengthened. He's not interested in toys and he only cares about walks, napping on me, and meals.

I may put him in a doggy day care one afternoon a week so he can get more play. He likes other dogs but he doesn't get to romp with them - just sniff their bottoms a bit on walks.

Butternut box! Sorry

My neighbour gets that for his staffy is very happy with it.

I would say 95g actually sounds like a lot for such a small dog, though it does depend on activity and the quality of the food.

I feed my dog for the weight she should be, so a bit less than the guide weight. I feed her Millie's Wolfheart and they say to judge if you are feeding the right amount by how the stools are; too soft means too much food and too hard means too little. I don't known if this is the same across the dog food board. Currently she is on 140g per day/70g per meal and she weighs 11kg and is 11 years old.

The guidelines are just a starting point, he may need slightly more or slightly less. Both mine eat more than recommended and maintain a good weight, I know others who only need 2/3 of the recommended.

My dog is 6 kg. Her food recommendation is 100g a day. She needs about 80 g to maintain a healthy weight (that’s a 4 on the body condition score). Dogs can only digest so much protein so if their poo is loose you are over feeding. It’s actually hard for a dog to gain too much weight on a good high protein diet.

I would want to see a very clear definition of waist and see the last rib in a heathy weight dog. If you dog has energy and is eating and sleeping well and active I would not increase the amount of food they are getting.

If you are following WSAVA guidelines be aware :

that they are not evidenced based
they are created by the very companies they promote very strongly
there has been no increase in canine health since they came out in 2011 (in fact dogs eating WSAVA promoted food have a increase in some illnesses than before the guidelines came out)
The guidelines give no recommendations on the nutritional value of the food.

WSAVA doesn't promote any companies.

They don't make nutritional guidelines because that's not their purpose.

They suggest standards for pet food production that include things like employing a full-time veterinary nutritionist with a certain level of specialised education in the field and the direct ownership of the food manufacturing plants. These standards can be onerous for the smaller companies, it's true. But there are some successful brands that are able to pay for very expensive marketing - like Superbowl adverts - and they choose to subcontract their production and don't employ real, qualified nutritionists that perform testing. It's easier to use marketing that relies on anthropomorphic ideas of food and nutrition, orthorexic fads like "clean eating," paleo mumbo jumbo/pictures of wolves, and scare tactics to convince people that they need to buy the stuff we think looks appealing.

WSAVA's first nutrition guidelines were published in 2011.

Involved in creating the guidelines were

Lisa Freeman worked for Hills
Nick Cave worked for Royal Canin
Clayton Mackay worked for Hills
Patrick Ngyuyen worked for Royal Canin

You would think nutrition guidelines would include actual nutritional information.

WSAVA does directly promote companies due to their guidelines

They don't publish nutrition guidelines. The publish guidelines on how to evaluate if a company is reputable. Some companies, like Purina and Hill's, have teams of scientists with decades of research and peer-reviewed published studies. They can name their scientists and give their credentials, and they can oversee every step of production because it is done in-house.

I trust that over some brand that uses pictures of wolves and exotic ingredients like reindeer, but don't employ nutrition scientists, and who subcontract their production to large firms that make dozens of brands.

Not really done in house as owned - Purina by Mars and Royal Canin by Colgate.

Personally I choose dog food that has ingredients that dogs can digest and named proteins rather than a food that is filled with meat meal or high in unnecessary or indigestible carbs.

I agree about marketing of some food eg Tails and BB which is so over priced but good marketing cons people into thinking it is a good food.

Purina and Mars own the production plants. The brands are just administrative divisions within the larger company. The point is that they haven't outsourced their production to outside firms. That's not necessarily a terrible thing for most consumer goods, but it does mean that they can have stricter oversight on what actually goes into the food.

We like named ingredients because we understand them. But there's nothing wrong with meal and by-products provided they take care to watch for adulterants like heavy metals or melamine. There are recommended maximum levels of macros, vitamins, potassium, calcium and other minerals and looking at them in relation to the weight of the product will give a good indication of the quality of the protein source.

Ingredient lists are misleading. They're listed by the weight of the ingredients going in, not their relative position in the finished product. Chicken meal weighs less than fresh raw chicken, as it's dry and raw meat is mostly water. Marketers have sussed that using fresh raw chicken will bump it to the top of the list, while not having any affect on the nutritional value.