Fresh and Fit The Benefits of Organic Diets for Dogs

What Is Fresh Pet Food and Is It Actually Better?

Were inundated with different types of pet food: kibble, raw, freeze-dried, grain-free, pt, and more. The choices can be overwhelming, and they often look anything but appetizing. And when our social feeds advertise fresh pet food, its natural to want to know more about these pre-cooked concoctions of real meat and vegetables that ship directly to our doors.

Unlike traditional kibble pet food, fresh pet food resembles those pricey, chunky varieties of canned food. It has fewer or no preservatives, and it is kept in the fridge, to maintain freshness between servings. Fresh pet food is certainly more appealing in name, but we were curious about whether it was actually a more healthful option for dogs and cats. To find out more about fresh pet food diets, I spoke with Dr. Lindsey Bullen, a board-certified veterinary nutritionist who works with the Veterinary Specialty Hospital of the Carolinas. Bullen has consulted with pet food companies before, but not with any of the services we mention below. I also priced some of the trendiest options for fresh dog food subscriptions, using a fictional 70-pound, 2-year-old golden retrieverone of the countrys most popular dog breeds, according to the American Kennel Club.

What is fresh pet food, exactly?

Fresh pet food brands like Freshpetfound in the fridge in your local pet storehelped commercialize fresh options for pet owners. Today, there are dozens of brands out there, and many are available as subscription services that function the same way: You create a dog profile, complete a questionnaire, customize your delivery frequency, and voil! Next thing you know, freshly made pet food arrives at your door packed in dry ice.

In my research, I found more than a dozen companies that market fresh pet food diets for cats and dogs, and their cooking methodologies, ingredients, and storage recommendations vary widely. According to Bullen, the term fresh pet food doesnt really have a specific definitionit just refers to pet food thats made with fewer or no preservatives. It could be made at home with boiled chicken and cooked plain rice, or it could be produced with recognizable ingredients in a facility, packaged without preservatives, and then frozen. For the brands we list here, we researched those that offer food thats commercially produced and thoroughly cooked at a low temperature, and that contain some combination of meats, grains, fruits, and vegetablesit tends to look like you took a humans Thanksgiving dinner plate and mixed it all together.

Okay, but is it actually better?

Many of these fresh pet food brands are marketed as being human-grade or say they dont contain fillers, but that doesnt mean theyre better than traditional pet food. The fillers in pet food are grains or carbohydratessuch as corn, soy, or wheatthat offer your pet nutritional value. Preservatives extend the shelf life, flavor, and smell of pantry pet foods and typically go through quality-control testing by the FDA or another governing body, to ensure the food is still safe for your pet to consume.

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) defines human-grade food as being suitable for human consumption, meaning all ingredients must be safe for humans to eat. Bullen explained that feed grade can be defined as being suitable for animal consumption. But the distinction may not be much more than marketing when youre talking about a dog who likes to eat leftovers out of the trash. There are so many things that would make food feed grade rather than human grade that wouldnt harm the animal in any form or fashion, Bullen said. A prime example of feed grade would be poultry by-product meal, which can consist of poultry liver, spleen, or kidneys, but would not include poultry feathers or feet.

The caloric density of a diet matters more than the marketing claims. Although each service customizes the portions of your dogs food, thats not the only factor that matters. Taking a look at the portion size doesnt always tell you a representative idea of how many calories theyre getting, Bullen warned. Its really gonna be, you know, are they maintaining weight, are they gaining weight, are they losing weight? She said that a mark of a good program is the room for adjustment. Fresher diets tend to have a lower caloric density rate than kibble dietssimilar to the caloric difference between a cup of fresh fruit and a cup of dried fruit. Most kibble diets range from 3.2 to 4.5 kilocalories per gram (91 to 128 kilocalories per ounce), according to Bullen, and the fresh pet food diets we reviewed range from 1.2 to 4.7 kilocalories per gram. (Although grams and kilograms are not typical American units of measurement, this is the standard way in which pet food is measured to find kilocalorie amounts.) This discrepancy is due to the difference in water present in each food. So be sure to follow the feeding guidelines for your service so that you dont under- or overfeed your pet.

Ultimately, when youre making any major changes to a pets diet, its best to consult your veterinarian. Some dogs process foods differently based on their biological build, so theres really no one-size-fits-all solution for your dogs meals. In terms of being nutritionally superior, [fresh pet food diets] are not. Its just going to be dependent on what that pet needs, and the individual diet that client has provided for that pet, Bullen said.

Ive rounded up some of the most popular direct-to-consumer fresh pet food companies. The options below are gleaned from Bullens expertise, interviews with each company, deep dives into third-party reviews, and comparison of each sites pricing model, recipes, and shipping availability. Ive also tried several different brands with my own dogs over the years, and I think the companies we mention below are great options for anyone whos interested in feeding their dog fresh pet food.

The Farmers Dog

The Farmers Dog offers freshly made, human-grade meals that pet owners could technically eat too. The company says it never uses feed-grade ingredients and that all of its ingredients are sourced responsibly from regional farms. The food is cooked at low temperatures, so pet owners never have to handle raw food. It arrives frozen, and all meals must be stored in the freezer and thawed in the fridge before serving. The Farmers Dog freezes multiple servings in each pack. To avoid leaks when the food is thawed and being stored in the fridge, you can keep it in a Rubbermaid TakeAlongs container, like I do.

Starting price: $2 per day ($12.96 per day for a 70-pound, 2-year-old golden retriever)Recipes: turkey, beef, porkKilocalories per ounce: 1,170 kcal/kg (turkey); 1,530 kcal/kg (beef); 1,390 kcal/kg (pork)Delivery frequency: customizable via customer service; scheduled to arrive before you run out of foodShips to: 48 contiguous statesReturn or guarantee policy: refunds available

Nom Nom

Nom Nom has a veterinary nutritionist on staff who ensures the recipes are formulated based on AAFCO standards, which are the industry standard for pet food (but AAFCO is not a governing body like the FDA or the USDA). Bullen hasnt reviewed Nom Nom, but she said the fact that the company has a full-time veterinary nutritionist on staff is a good sign regarding the products overall nutritional value. The meals arrive frozen and should be thawed in the fridge before they are eaten. Make sure you have plenty of freezer space because each meal is individually packaged, which makes meal prep and storage easier and less messy overall. Nom Nom also adds seven complimentary back-up meals to your second ordera bonus for stocking your fridge in case of delayed deliveries.

Starting price: $3 per day ($9.69 per day for a 70-pound, 2-year-old golden retriever)Recipes: turkey, chicken, beef, porkKilocalories per kg: 1,479 kcal/kg (turkey); 1,255 kcal/kg (chicken); 1,239 kcal/kg (beef); 1,246 kcal/kg (pork)Delivery frequency: every two weeks or every four weeksShips to: 48 contiguous statesReturn or guarantee policy: No returns, but theres a money-back guarantee.

Ollie

Ollie recipes follow AAFCO standards, and the company says it sources its meats from the US and Australia. The meals arrive frozen, and though unopened meals can last in the fridge for up to 14 days, you can also freeze and thaw your pets meals as needed. Depending on the feeding instructions for your pet, each package could contain multiple meals. So once you open it, store the opened package in the fridge until youve finished it. Ollie provides a storage container and a scoop with your order to help keep those opened packages fresh.

Starting price: less than $2 per day ($10.63 per day for a 70-pound, 2-year-old golden retriever)Recipes: turkey, chicken, beef, lambKilocalories per kg: 1,390 kcal/kg (turkey); 1,298 kcal/kg (chicken); 1,540 kcal/kg (beef); 1,804 kcal/kg (lamb)Delivery frequency: customizable, anywhere from every two weeks to every eight weeksShips to: 48 contiguous statesReturn or guarantee policy: 100% money back guarantee, per its homepage

Spot & Tango

Spot & Tango sells both fresh kibble (UnKibble) and fresh food. The fresh food is human-grade and includes fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains, and excludes additives and preservatives. The fresh kibble is cooked in a vacuum chamber at low temperatures and dried, and it resembles typical dog kibble. The fresh kibble should be stored in a cool, dark place and used within three to four weeks of opening. The fresh food is portioned and individually packaged, and should be frozen upon delivery.

Starting price: $7 per week ($11.66 per day for a 70-pound, 2-year-old golden retriever)Recipes: turkey (fresh), beef (fresh), lamb (fresh), chicken (kibble), beef (kibble), duck (kibble)Kilocalories per kg: 1,437 kcal/kg (turkey, fresh); 1,420 kcal/kg (beef, fresh); 1,345 kcal/kg (lamb, fresh); 3,921 kcal/kg (chicken, kibble); 4,749 kcal/kg (beef, kibble); 4,368 kcal/kg (duck, kibble)Delivery frequency: every two weeks for fresh food and every four weeks for fresh kibble, with free two-day shippingShips to: 48 contiguous statesReturn or guarantee policy: money-back guarantee

Sources

1. Dr. Lindsey Bullen, Veterinary Specialty Hospital of the Carolinas, phone interview, May 18, 2020

2. Alex Jarrell, co-founder of Nom Nom, email interview, April 9, 2020

3. Russell Breuer, founder of Spot & Tango, Spot & Tango, email interview, April 9, 2020

4. Jonathan Regev, co-founder and CEO, The Farmers Dog, email interview, April 9, 2020

5. Evan Woods, head of Growth, Ollie, email interview, April 16, 2020

Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards

ColiformsWeese et al. (2005)CanadaCPF, raw, frozen and freezedried (25).Cult., Sero.Coliforms: mean 10⁶cfu/g. E. coli: 64%. Salmonella: 20%. Clostridium perfringens: 20%. Cl. difficile 4%. Staphylococcus aureus 4%.E. coliBacci et al. (2019)Including ESBL. Expired human food. ItalyPoultry (52), pork (30) and beef (30), potentially for raw CPF.Cult., Sero., PCR (ESBL genes)E. coli: 98% samples, MDR in 48% of 110 isolates. Salmonella: 13% pork, 12% poultry, 0% beef; of 10 isolates, 80% serovar Typhimurium, 70% MDR, 40% ESBL pheno and genotype.van Bree et al. (2018)Including O157:H7, ESC. The NetherlandsCPF, raw frozen (35).Cult. (bacteria), PCR (protozoa detect.)E. coli: 86%, mean 910² cfu/g. O157:H7: 23%. ESC: 80%. Salmonella: 20%. Listeria monocytogenes: 54%. Toxoplasma gondii: 6%. Sarcocystis species: 23%.Byrne et al. (2018)Tracing from four linked human STEC O157 cases. EnglandCPF and ingredients, raw: cases freezers (2), linked producer (1) and supplier (1).Cult., PCR, genome sequencing.STEC: multiple PCRpositive samples from one home and linked producer. STEC O100:H30 from latter. Outbreak isolate not recovered, but much STEC contamination.Nilsson (2015)Including ESC. SwedenCPF, raw frozen (39).Cult., PCR (typing)E. coli: 49% > 510² cfu/g; 5%>510⁴cfu/g; ESC: 23% bla_cmy2.Azza et al. (2014)EgyptPet food: raw (20), not raw (40).Cult.E. coli: 35%. Salmonella: 5%. S. aureus: 15%. All from raw.Nemser et al. (2014)O157:H7 and STEC, USACPF: raw (196), dried treats (190), not raw (480).Cult., PCR (STEC)No O157:H7. Raw (mostly frozen): STEC 4%, Salm. 8%, Listeria species 33%, L. monocytogenes 16%. Dry: STEC 1.1%, Listeria species 0.5%. Not raw: Salm. 0.2%, Listeria greyii 0.2%.Lenz et al. (2009)O157, USAPet dogs (91), 42 rawfed, matched faeces and food.Cult., Sero.E. coli O157: No isolations. Salm.: 14% rawfed dogs, 5% raw food samples; no other isolations. Campylobacter jejuni: 1 isolation from rawfed dog.Lefebvre et al. (2008)Including ESC. Health care assistance dogs, CanadaDogs (194), 40 rawfed raw. Faeces and nasal swabs, bimonthly for 1year.Cult., Sero.Point prevalence ranges (% dogs): ESC E. coli (AmpCtype) raw 15 to 45 versus nonraw 0.9 to 9.7; Salm. raw 2.5 to 25 versus nonraw 0 to 2.6. VRE: 1 isolate; ESBL no isolations. All dogs shedding Salm. >1 occasion were raw fed. MRSA and Cl. difficile: no association with raw feeding.Strohmeyer et al. (2006)USACPF, raw frozen (240), not raw (48).Cult. (bacteria), PCR (protozoa detect.)E. coli: 60% raw, 33% dry, 8.3% canned. Salmonella: 7.1% raw, Cryptosporidium: 0.8% raw, 4% canned.Freeman & Michel (2001)O157:H7, USACPF, also homemade and meat plus additive, all raw (5).Cult.One E. coli O157:H7 isolate, no Salmonella.See also Weese et al. (2005) (under Coliforms)SalmonellaMDH (2018)Link to human Salm. Reading cases, USACPF, raw, ground turkey (1).Cult.Salmonella Reading (1/1).Reimschuessel et al. (2017)Laboratory submissions, USAPet dog (2422) and cat (542) stools, 50% diarrhoeic.Cult., Sero.Rawfed dogs overrepresented among Salmonellapositive cases (P=0.03, multiple regression). Cats rarely Salmonella positive.Kantere et al. (2016)GreeceDogs (120), 60 rawfed; oral plus faecal swabs.Cult., Sero.Salmonella only from rawfed dogs (18%). Various serovars, antimicrobial resistances common.Mehlenbacher et al. (2012)USACPF: raw frozen (29), dehydrated and freezedried (31), not raw (5).Cult., Sero.14% of frozen raw, four serovars.Leonard et al. (2011)CanadaPet dogs (138), 28 rawfed. Faeces, 5 consecutive days.Cult., Sero.50% rawfed dogs versus 16% not rawfed; raw feeding only significant risk factor for shedding in series of univariable models.Behravesh et al. (2010)Investigation of human cases, USAFaeces of cases pet dogs (15), dry dog and cat food (multiple), feedmill samples.Cult., PFGES. Schwarzengrund of outbreak PFGE pattern isolated from six of 15 dog stool samples and four brands of dog and cat food from same feedmill, plus one location within the mill. Mostly young children infected, risk factor of feeding pet in kitchen in univariable casecontrol study.Finley et al. (2008)Canada and USACPF, raw frozen (166).Cult.21%, up to five serovars per sample, some multiresistant. Chickencontaining diets more likely (5) to yield Salmonella.Finley et al. (2007)Naturally contaminated raw food.Faeces, 16 experimentally fed dogs. Daily sampling.Cult., Sero.Seven dogs shed Salmonella, for range 1 to 11days. Two of these shed a serovar different from that isolated from the food.Brisdon et al. (2006)Traceback from three human casesDog treats, link to cases by brand or premises.Cult., PFGEIndistinguishable subtypes of S. Thompson from humans and pet treats in all cases.Morley et al. (2006)Dog kennels, salmonellosis. Food mixed on site. USA.Food in bowls (3), frozen beef (18), environment swabs (31), dog faeces (61).Cult., Sero., PFGEIsolates from 100% food in bowls, 33% beef, 93% faeces, 48% swabs. Predominantly S. Newport including all meat isolates. Multiple subtypes, overlap between beef, faeces and environment isolates.Weese & Rousseau (2006)Bowl hygiene study using spiked food.Swabs, after contamination of bowl surfaces and drying.Cult.Proportion of bowls with viable Salmonella Copenhagen after: 7days (100%), 85 C dishwasher cycle (67%) or scrubbing with soap (79%) followed by bleach soak (42%).Pitout et al. (2003)Link to human cases in ESC Salm. clusterDog treat: dried beef (1).Cult., Sero., PFGEESC, PFGE pattern identical to some and similar to others from human S. Newport ESC cases.Joffe & Schlesinger (2002)Food and recipient dog study. CanadaCPF: raw chickenbased (10) and not raw (10). Dog faeces (20).Cult., Sero.Food, raw: 80%, various serovars. Faeces, rawfed, 30%. No other isolations.Clark et al. (2001)CanadaTreats: pig ear (265), other (39).Cult., PFGE, PTPig ears: production plant 29% and retail 51%. Other treats: 38%. Several serovars.Hea (2000)Traceback from human case. CanadaPig ear treat from linked premises.Cult., PFGE, PTS. Infantis: same serovar, phage type and PFGE pattern as human case.Mayer et al. (1976)Rawfed police dogs, GermanyFaeces, dogs (67), three occasions.Cult.First sampling: 42% shedding Salm. Thereafter, diet was cooked, but 69% dogs fed raw offal by handlers. Second sampling: 55% shedding, more serovars reflecting local pig carriage.See also Weese et al. (2005) (under Coliforms); Bacci et al. (2019), van Bree et al. (2018), Azza et al. (2014), Nemser et al. (2014), Lenz et al. (2009), Lefebvre et al. (2008), Strohmeyer et al. (2006) and Freeman & Michel (2001) (under E. coli)CampylobacterBojanic et al. (2017)New ZealandCPF, raw (50); rectal swabs, dogs (90), cats (110).Cult., PCR (speciation), MLST.Campylobacter species: food, 28%; dogs 36%; cats 16%. C. jejuni: food 22%; dogs 13%; cats 5%; several MLST types shared between food and pets.See also Weese et al. (2005) (under Coliforms); Lenz et al. (2009) and Strohmeyer et al. (2006) (under E. coli)Yersinia enterocoliticaBucher et al. (2008)GermanyFaeces, various species; pig tissues (tonsil, edible offal, pork), other livestock tissues.Cult., PCR (detection)Tissues, culture: pig offal 51%, pork 9.6%. Tissues, PCR: pork 8.3%, sheep tonsil 3%, poultry 1%, game 38%. Faeces, PCR: dog 5%, cat 3%.FredrikksonAhomaa et al. (2001)Biotype 4/O:3 isolates study, FinlandFaeces: dog (12) and cat (4). Pig: abattoir (75) and retail (41).PFGEPFGE patterns of dog and cat isolates, including known rawfed animals, overlap with those from pigderived food.Brucella suisFrost (2017)Netherlands and UKRaw frozen hare meat, imported from Argentina for pet food.Technique(s) not describedIdentified following traceback from B. suis infection of rawfed dog in Netherlands.ListeriaSee Azza et al. (2014), Nemser et al. (2014) and van Bree et al. (2018) under E. coliStaphylococcus aureusSee Weese et al. (2005) under Coliforms; Lefebvre et al. (2008), Azza et al. (2014), Nemser et al. (2014) and van Bree et al. (2018) under E. coliEnterococcus species (VRE)See Lefebvre et al. (2008) under E. coliClostridiaSee Weese et al. (2005) under Coliforms; Lefebvre et al. (2008) under E. coli