Hi Patricia,
I think you have stumbled upon a stunning example of what I mentioned in the previous comment “Also, I’ve found numerous companies whose feeding recommendations if followed would also result in deficiencies. In my experience this has been with smaller companies and expensive diets like freeze dried and fresh.”
Like you I calculated an average of 230 kcals for a 6 lb dog with a range of 118-354. I suspect the chance that their feeding recommendation of 70 kcals would meet nutrient needs is abysmal. But for laughs and giggles I’ll walk you through looking at a few nutrients using NRC recommended amounts on a metabolic body weight basis. Metabolic body weight is weight in kg to the .75 power, for a 6 lb dog it is 2.12kg MBW
The company has told us that each chicken patty is 73 kcal and that there are 4.33 kcals/gram of food which means each patty weight would be ~17 grams
Their nutrient analysis is on a dry matter basis and not as fed. If we corrected for moisture content, the amount fed on a dry matter basis may be closer to 16 grams but let’s give them the best case scenario and say the DM basis is 17 grams .
Looking at a few nutrients: Vit B1: NRC rec amount is .074mg/kg MBW x 2.12 = .157 mg
Vital Essentials chicken fed as directed 0.00235mg/gram X 17 grams= 0.04mg
Vit B2: NRC rec amount is .171mg/kgMBW X 2.12 = 0.362mg
VE chicken fed as directed 0.0055mg/grams X 17 grams =0.09mg
I could go on, but I think you get the picture When using their information and when fed as they directed, you’d meet about 25% of NRC recommended nutrient amount
Looking further, let’s compare the nutrient analysis they gave us to AAFCO for the same nutrients AAFCO requires 2.25mg/kg DM of B1 and 5.2mg/kg DM B2
VE reports their diet has 2.35mg/kg DM B1 and 5.5 Mg/kg DM B2 So that looks good right?
Well, we need to correct for energy density. AAFCO requires this be done for any diet exceeding 4000kcals/kg DM VE reports as fed kcals are 4330 /kg and they report moisture max as 8%. Let’s go with 5% moisture instead to give VE a buffer 4330/.95= 4558kcals/kg DM. To correct for energy density the correction factor is 4558/4000= 1.14
Applying the correction factor of 1.14 X 2.25mg/kg = 2.56mg/kg so their diet at 2.35mg/kg, based on the information they provided seems to fall short of AAFCO min. Even if we went with their as fed kcal of 4330 it still falls short.
Looking at B2 1.14 x 5.2mg/kg = 5.93mg/kg and they report 5.5 mg/kg, and like B1 even if we used the as fed caloric level of 4330 it still falls short.
So for me, when a company does not appear to understand something as simple as setting a feeding recommendation to meet nutrient and caloric needs or how to assess if their diet meets the AAFCO profile It is not a company I’d ever feed. Rightly or wrongly if a company apparently can’t seem to grasp such simple nutritional concepts, then how can I trust that they would understand the complexities of food formulation and quality control.
