DogFoodAdvisor

The so-called reviews on the Dog Food Adviser are just some guy's opinions, and he has little if any actual vet training. From what I can tell, the site only promotes some odd hard-to-find brands. It makes me wonder if the site gets somekind of kickbacks from those brands? I do not know that, but I also know I do not trust Dog Food Advisor's suggestions.

I used to find a lot of excellence In this website. It was 1 of a kind. It kept foods accountable by ingredients and rated them, largely, based on the 1st 3 ingredients (75% of weight in bag) as well as following ingredients, if suspect. It was thorough, but also simple in some respects.
Now, I'm seeing brands and foods that were previously rated 2stars now at 5.
The ingredients havent changed. Im assuming this has to do with advertising $ or possibly whoever owns shares in this business/website now. It can no longer be objective or trusted. I'm saddened by this.

Absolutely no science to their ratings, and with the recent FDA study into grain free diets many of their highly rated diets ARE KILLING DOGS.

This site has done a huge disservice to pets everywhere and has directly contributed to dog deaths.

The subject website is bogus at best, dangerous at most. Nutrition advice is being dispensed by a dentist and NOT a licensed veterinary nutritionist or animal nutritionist or veterinarian. The person dispensing such advice on the website has no science to back his analyses up! So much bad info is coming from the internet these days- it's a shame. It's time to get back to sound nutrition advice that doesn't come from a blogger/website, pet store or even the pet food companies themselves. The person(s) who contribute to websites such as these ignore FDA/AAFCO and sound scientific advice and warnings on feeding and nutrition for animals.

I very much appreciate all of the information available on the site! Whether or not a site developer has direct education in the field of their site is not that important. I have cross-checked and researched much of what I have seen on the site, enough that after confirming what I have read, I feel comfortable trusting the site and the info. As with all things, do your own research, but I really like the site for the huge amount of info available, especially the advisory reports and recall notices they send. Great resource!

Mike Sagaman is NOT a regular doctor-he is a dentist.Don't believe what these 'top contributors' tell you! I pointed out their flaws in their studies they pick and choose as they go along and now I'm blocked-after THEY (regulars) gave me 5 down votes and among themselves 5 up votes on every vote. They were very MEAN just because I pointed out the facts were they were scientifically wrong.BE CAREFUL-their advice on animal nutrition such as raw diet, very high protein etc. is not good for every dog.Don't believe everything they tell you. They pretend to be experts but look at their credentials-they don't have any real credentials in the field.

It was very hard to handle the bullying-in the end he blocked me-why? No reason as I did not do anything wrong-he deleted some of the regular contributors' posts since they were totally mean-but then decided to block me-obviously he want people to read only one-sided information.He also never informed me as to why he blocked me-obviously this is a very bad negative group!

Reviews are based on opinions not fact or unbiased research. They also feed into the "fad" diets.

I don't know whats going on here with bad reviews. I happen to like"Dog Food Advisor" Keeps me informed about RECALLS. With this DCM problem. Was on my local news channel recently... One day later I also got a notice from DFA of the problem. They gave sent me a list of some of the dry dog foods that meet the requirements and that they will be working on this...

You can't even get true testimonials for any of the foods on this site.The "regulars" there just like to come on and act like they are experts in dog nutrition, when the truth is they only google stuff just like you and I can do, then act like superior knowitalls. They also like to throw around the name Karen Becker alot, like she is the only authority on animal nutrition, which she is not.

The sad thing is the number of people who go there seeking advice from these faux experts.It seems there words are taken as gospel by some, which is a shame. Personally, I think the people who post non stop on that site just have too much time on their hands. I honestly don't see how they have time for the pets they claim to love and want the best for. Well, stop posting 6000 coments on a blog, that would help.

Another thing is, some of the regulars also like to make people think it is unhealthy to spay or neuter your pet. This is not true.It is a well known documented fact that altered animals live longer healthier lives than their non altered counterparts.One thing being, the risk for certain cancers are eliminated. They like to claim that if you are a "responsible pet owner" your pet will not contribute to the number of unwanted pets in this country. Well I am responsible, but you know what? My pet could slip out of his harness one day while on a walk, and so could any other pet owners, no matter how responsible you are.

To end this, The Dog Food Advisor site is just a place for paranoid, judgemental, bored housewives with over inflated heads to go and gloat and brag and pretend they spend a small fortune on what they feed their pets, when in reality, they probably just feed your everyday run of the mill dog food.Don't listen to them.Do your own research and find what you think is best for your furbabies.

And yes, they will block you, but let the regulars (brats if you ask me) belittle everyone and still give them free reign because they brown nose dentist Mike.

Edited to add they changed a comment from someone who called it like he saw it.The original comment was condemning the regulars there for giving medical advice without a license. Someone, I am guessing Mike, changed it to be a positive comment towards the dogfoodadvisor. I am sorry, but I would not trust this site.It gives me a slimy feeling. Please, just go to other dog forums or read reviews about dog foods somewhere else.

The man claims to be an expert on dog food when in fact he is a retired dentist with nothing better to do. He does amateur research on companies and gives the food 1 to 5 star ratings. He calculates percentages that do not make sense and bases his percentages on only the first ten ingredients of the foods. He habitually makes comments about aspects of foods that do not matter in choosing a food. The sad part of this is that most uniformed pet owners turn to him for advice. Just STAY AWAY from this site.

Open feedback to the company: I tried searching for an onsite feedback for people not yet members. Finding none, this will have to do.
Your marketing raised red flags and scared me away from joining. There are a series of scam sites using your exact marketing techniques. Instead of letting me have the necessary information to consider joining your newsletter, you teased me with information the would be revealed if I sat through a long presentation of you reading slides promising what would be revealed if I just endured your lengthy presentation. You cannot be succinct now, what should make me think you will deliver better once I became a member? Finally you offered me a high pressure "act now or forever be denied" high pressure closing. This typical of scams. You may or may not be one, but you are exactly following the technique of scammers. For this reason, I will not be doing business with you.

It it so sad that this one person wrote all these bad reviews for Dog Food Advisor. Jackie L. Tom D. Mandy J. Joe M. Tanya G. Sugar A. A. D. Are all the same person, posting under different names to make it look like several people have had a bad experience on DFA. If you read through all the comments from all those different names, you can totally tell that it is the same person writing all of the posts. I remember you being banned from the site, not for disagreeing with people, but for posting under multiple fake names, just like you have done here. Which is a violation of the sites rules. On DFA you posted as Sue, Laura, David, Peter, Dogs on the hill, and a bunch of other names that I can't remember. I guess we will never know your true identity, or what your mental problem is. It is too funny that Jackie L and Tom D. Wrote the exact same review word for word. Probably because they are the exact same person posting under several different fake identities. LMAO. How pathetic.

It becomes noticeable that there is a war going on between the 'regulars' and most other men and women; people they disagree with them. It also becomes noticeable that the 'regulars' are allowed to violate the web site's rules and act racist while other people get banned permanently without any good reasons. The name-calling by the 'regulars' include 'ignorant person', 'misguided hippie' (which is racism), 'spoiled brat-dog should get a new home', just to name a few from yesterday and today. Then Mike defends the 'regulars' and claims others would be the 'cyber stalkers', 'fraudulent posters with intend to deceive', or 'people with fake or deceptive identities' etc. using very strong words legally questionable while Pattyvaugh among Hounddog, Shawna, Betsy Greer, LabsRaw, Iosol and a couple of followers are doing exactly that and it is noticeable on every thread.

There is no doubt in my mind to conclude that these strong words by the editor are inaccurate. It becomes easily understood that all he does is defending his groupies and exaggerate other people's conduct. I conclude without a doubt that eater he intentionally misrepresents and act fraudulently or it is possible that people do post with an alternative identity, not 'a fraudulent identity with intend to deceive' simply because they have been banned from the site and tried to speak their mind. This is completely different having an alternative ID is not illegal.

The past seven days I have witnessed the editor to eliminate at least eight posts that were permitted but questioned the editor's diet choices. I have followed the site for a while and hope someone will file a lawsuit against them for all the bullying and mistreatment so many innocent people have received. Also his information he provides states in violation with the FTC. He constructs many false claims and a disclaimer won't protect him.

Dogfood Advisor is one site where I can get a list of many food brands available for my dog. In addition, Dogfood Advisor has guidance on what food may be best in consideration of my budget. It also alerts me to food recalls. It is my personal opinion dogs need to eat fresh food, not kibble, as often as your budget allows. The astronomical rise of cancer rates in dogs starts with what they are fed.

It becomes noticeable that there is a war going on between the 'regulars' and most other men and women; people they disagree with them. It also becomes noticeable that the 'regulars' are allowed to violate the web site's rules, the rules of discuss and act racist while other people get banned permanently without any good reasons. The name-calling by the 'regulars' include 'ignorant person', 'misguided hippie' (which is racism), 'spoiled brat-dog should get a new home', just to name a few from yesterday and today. Then Mike defends the 'regulars' and claims others would be the 'cyber stalkers', 'fraudulent posters with intend to deceive', or 'people with fake or deceptive identities' etc. using very strong words legally questionable while Pattyvaugh among Hounddog, Shawna, Betsy Greer, LabsRaw, Iosol and a couple of followers are doing exactly that and it is noticeable on every thread.

There is no doubt in my mind to conclude that these strong words by the editor are inaccurate. It becomes easily understood that all he does is defending his groupies and exaggerate other people's conduct. I conclude without a doubt that eater he intentionally misrepresents and act fraudulently or it is possible that people do post with an alternative identity, not 'a fraudulent identity with intend to deceive' simply because they have been banned from the site and tried to speak their minds. This is completely different having an alternative ID from a fraudulent ID and it is not illegal. In fact most of his regulars have admitted not using their real names.

The past seven days I have witnessed the editor to eliminate at least eight posts that were permitted but questioned the editor's diet choices. I have followed the site for a while and hope someone will file a lawsuit against them for all the bullying and mistreatment so many innocent people have received. Also his information he provides states in violation with the FTC. He constructs many false claims and a disclaimer won't protect him. He is not allowed to claim, for instance, he provides unbiased information while he does and his entire site and rating system is based on biased claims. Then he is not allowed to fraudulently misrepresent posts making it sound like everyone agrees with him by having all the critical posts deleted on some threads using questionable claims and methods. He is also not allowed to promote certain diets without a warning, while the diets often make dogs sick. He misguides the reader for giving some brands 5 stars who had lots of recalls and killed dogs or frequently make them sick. Other dog foods he claims they are bad because of peas without providing scientific evidence. He also misrepresents frequently scientific evidence in order to promote his plan of a certain diet that is very high in protein and very high in meat content. He simultaneously claims it is 'just his opinion' and admits he is a dentist yet his white doctor coat is very misleading falsely presenting him a 'doctor in the field'.

Mike Sagaman is not an expert. He is not a medical doctor, a nurse, a vet or a licensed nutritionist. He has regular contributors who have made fanatic claims about dog food just like him yet the claims are inaccurate and not based on true science. These regular contributors don't have real credentials yet claim they know everything about dog food and are experts, but they are NOT and are more wrong than right.
I people disagree who have actually scientific evidence and credentials to back it up they get flagged by the same 5-6 people and end up with 30 flags. He then conveniently blocks them and deletes their posts but keeps the inaccurate, mean-spirited posts of the regular contributors.
They claimed years ago Diamond dog food is excellent. Now after all the reviews they all the sudden agree after they blocked the people and bullied, chased away who pointed out that they use low quality ingredients. The same goes with raw dog food they all the sudden got quiet about or will be in the future the 40% highly processed rendered meat protein they recommend that gives the dogs nothing but loose stools and diarrhea. Beside having had several recalls these foods have 5 stars and other companies who use high quality ingredients and never had a recall and are way have only 4 stars. If you mention it you will get bullied and blocked as an end result. Their claims about meat vs plant protein is NOT TRUE and there is no scientific evidence that plant protein is inferior to meat protein the way they claim! In reality, peas are good for a dog! Cheese is OK! So are lentils and vegetables! If you mention this you will get bullied, flagged, deleted and blocked in the end!
End result is the website provides bias information NOT based in science! Mike will even make up stories in order to conveniently remove your review, such as falsely claiming you have multiple identities and the same IP address with other people you have never met!
Don't believe these people about health or pet food! Most of them have fed Purina dog food until recently and don't have any real credentials to back up what they falsely claim!

I posted a comment today obviously the groupies and Mike Sagaman did not like and Pattyvaughn flagged me. I did not know what this was all about but then all the sudden saw my posts deleted. I did not violate any rules! Mike stated that he has sent me an email to verify my identity. But why is he sending me an email after he deleted my comments because Pattyvaughn flagged me because she did not like what I said since it contradicted her idea? If he REALLY wanted me to verify my identity why did he not give me a chance to do so and is lying what his true intensions are? Then he falsely claimed my email-address would be fraudulent and that is why he deleted my posts-what a cheap and convenient exuse! This accusation is indeed incorrect-he either has sent an email to the wrong address or did not send it since I have NOT received anything.So many people have mentioned this on the dogfoodadviosor (before their posts got fraudulently by Mike deleted too): You get deleted if you post something contrary to their belief. They believe only THEIR foods they recommend is good because their foods use 100% cheap meals and they think it is better than plant protein which is not true! I prefer medication-free human grade ingredients, high quality plant products and real human grade meats over their cheap low grade meals and products from China. I guess they did not like when I pointed out that their foods they recommend and falsely believe that they use high quality use vitamins from China and their meat meals is of low quality containing medication. I don't want to kill my dogs with their poison they feed and falsely claim their cheap meals are good for them-it is very difficult to break down amino acids in meals if it is of low quality-ask Halo. I use Halo, Pinnacle and Fromm since these foods are EASY on the digestive tract and won't make your dogs sick like the others with the recalls and cheap meat meals they recommend. You want to PROLONG your dog's life and you won't do so with difficult to digest food that causes diarrhea! It is obvious that the groupies were jelous of my credentials or have you noticed, no professional posts there anymore, they chase everyone away and want to have the site for themselves. Mike likes it since the groupies reflect his wrong theories on dog food and he doesn't have any real credentials in the field himself. And his data is completely off. Here is how: He takes average ash of 8%. Well Fromm has 6% Ash, Canine Caviar 10% this is a 4% difference. Why not contact the companies to get accurate information? Don't believe anything they say. Whenever I listened to them it turned out to be WRONG in the end and my dogs GOT SICK! So did many others.

GREAT INFO ON DOG FOOD. SAD SOME SPAM POSTER MAKES THIS SITE LOOK BAD WHEN CLEARLY ITS THE SAME POST UNDER 10 FAKE NAMES