Who Is Big Canyon Pet Food? I Went Looking
Big Canyon Pet Food crossed my radar recently, and because it is a relatively new company making some fairly big claims about nutrition science, I wanted to know more about it.
The product line is small: grain-inclusive chicken and fish kibble, a senior formula, and two varieties of treats. The company talks quite a bit about science, sustainability, ingredient quality, and having its recipes developed by top university pet nutrition scientists.
That last part caught my attention. So did the background of one of the founders.
I started looking.
Some of what I found was interesting. Some of it raised more questions than it answered. And several things on Big Canyon’s own website don’t seem to fit particularly well together.
This article is based on publicly available information I reviewed through August 29, 2026. If Big Canyon provides additional information or changes its published material, some of my conclusions could change too.
Who is behind Big Canyon?
Big Canyon was founded by Brandon Antin and Andrea Luskin. Trademark records identify Tasty Nutrition, Inc. as the company behind the Big Canyon marks; Tasty Nutrition began filing pet-food trademarks in 2021, followed by Big Canyon-related filings in 2023. [1]
Brandon Antin has a long history with VCA Animal Hospitals. He held senior corporate positions there, including Vice President of Corporate Affairs. [2]
Mars acquired VCA in 2017 in a transaction valued at approximately $9.1 billion, after which VCA became a separate business unit within Mars Petcare. [3]
I found no evidence that Mars owns Big Canyon, that Big Canyon is a Mars company, or that Antin personally formulated foods for Pedigree, Royal Canin, or other Mars brands.
But he did spend years in senior management at VCA, including after it became part of Mars Petcare. He was hardly coming into the pet industry cold.
I don’t consider that a negative. Relevant industry experience can be very useful when starting a pet food company. I’d rather see that than another brand launched by someone whose main qualification is loving their dog very, very much.
Still, it is useful context.
Who are the “top university pet nutrition scientists”?
Big Canyon makes this one of its most visible credentials.
Its website says the food was developed by “top university pet food scientists,” and its product pages describe formulas developed by pet nutrition scientists from “a leading veterinary university.” [4]
Great.
Who?
I still don’t know.
I could not find the scientists named, and I could not find the university named.
That doesn’t make the claim false. It just means I can’t independently evaluate it.
“University pet nutrition scientist” can describe people with very different educational backgrounds and areas of expertise. Was formulation led by a boarded veterinary nutritionist? A PhD animal nutritionist? Several academic researchers? Were they consultants who helped with the original formulas, or are they still involved with the company? Were any of them involved with dog nutrition specifically? A background in poultry diets, for example, would “technically” count, but not practically.
If their expertise is important enough to feature prominently in the advertising, I think it’s reasonable to expect being told who they are.
That question becomes more important later.
AAFCO: formulated or feeding tested?
Big Canyon’s own FAQ says its adult and senior recipes are formulated to meet the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for adult maintenance. [5]
That’s a perfectly legitimate method of establishing nutritional adequacy.
A third-party review of Big Canyon, however, repeatedly states that the diets completed AAFCO feeding trials before launch and describes them as having passed feeding trials. [6]
Those are two different claims.
A food can establish nutritional adequacy by formulation to an AAFCO nutrient profile or through an AAFCO feeding protocol. A company might do both, but one does not automatically imply the other.
Since Big Canyon’s own published FAQ says formulated to meet, that’s how I would classify the diets unless the company starts to use the legal statement on their packaging that AAFCO feeding trials have substantiated nutritional adequacy.
Who actually makes Big Canyon?
Big Canyon says its foods are made in the United States, but its public FAQ does not identify the manufacturing company or specific production facility. The company refers to working with its suppliers and manufacturers and invites customers to contact it for more specific manufacturing information. [5]
I’d prefer to see that information published publicly.
Pet food companies don’t have to own their manufacturing plants for me to like their products. Plenty of good brands use experienced contract manufacturers. I just want to know who those manufacturers are.
While looking at possible contract manufacturers, Muenster Pet in Texas became interesting.
To be clear:
I have not found evidence confirming that Muenster manufactures Big Canyon.
I would not state that it does.
What I found is enough circumstantial similarity to make Muenster a possibility.
Muenster provides private-label and contract manufacturing services. Its capabilities include extruded kibble, freeze-dried foods and treats, blending and packaging, and turnkey or custom formulations developed by its in-house team. [7]
Its kibble is produced in Muenster, Texas, while freeze-dried products are produced at a separate facility in Denton. [8]
Then I compared some formulations.
Big Canyon’s Adult Ocean White Fish recipe isn’t the same food as Muenster’s Perfect Balance Ocean Fish recipe, but there is an interesting family resemblance.
Both use a similar overall structure involving fish, sorghum and other grains, salmon oil, flaxseed and beet pulp, followed farther down the panel by many of the same nutritional and functional ingredients essentially in the same order: potassium chloride, choline chloride, DL-methionine, taurine, amino-acid-complex minerals, vitamin E, yucca, niacin, inulin, carrots, blueberries, cranberries, the B vitamins, EDDI, vitamin D3, sodium selenite, rosemary extract and green tea extract. [9,10]
Muenster chicken formulas show some of the same recurring formulation choices as well. [11]
This does not prove common manufacture. Commercial premixes, shared ingredient suppliers and fairly ordinary formulation practices can create similarities among unrelated foods.
Still, if you’re trying to identify a manufacturer that a brand does not publicly name, ingredient and formulation patterns are one reasonable place to look.
So Muenster remains a question mark on my page, not an answer.
Interestingly, Muenster has also participated in Kansas State University’s pet-food program; company representative Mitch Felderhoff was a panelist at K-State’s 2022 KibbleCon. [12]
Could that have anything to do with Big Canyon’s unnamed university scientists?
Maybe.
I found no evidence connecting Big Canyon’s formulation work to Kansas State, so I am not making that connection for them. It is simply another loose end.
The generic ingredients bother me
This matters considerably more to me than the manufacturer detective work.
Big Canyon uses some surprisingly generic ingredient descriptions.
The Adult Chicken & Multigrain formula lists “Dried Multigrains” and “Fish Meal.” [9]
The fish recipe uses “White Fish Meal,” which is somewhat more descriptive but still does not identify a species.
I don’t like generic ingredients.
That does not mean I object to grains. I don’t. Appropriately selected grains can be perfectly good dog-food ingredients.
I object to not knowing what they are.
“Dried Multigrains” does not tell me which grains make up that ingredient, how many different grains are included, or their proportions. Nor can I tell from the ingredient statement whether the composition of that blend is fixed or whether components can change while remaining within a supplier specification.
I’m not saying Big Canyon changes the blend from batch to batch. I have no evidence that it does.
I’m saying the label doesn’t tell me.
The same principle applies to generic fish meal. I would rather know the species than be given a broad category.
There is an additional labeling question here that I would like Big Canyon to clarify.
AAFCO’s public pet-food labeling guidance says ingredients in pet foods must be listed individually and that collective terms covering several ingredients, such as “grain products,” cannot substitute for individual ingredient names on a pet-food ingredient statement. [13]
I do not know the regulatory definition or status under which Big Canyon is using “Dried Multigrains,” so I am not claiming the label violates AAFCO requirements.
But I would like to know what “Dried Multigrains” actually represents: whether it is a defined ingredient, a common or usual name for a supplied ingredient, what its components are, and whether those components are fixed.
That’s a fair question for any manufacturer using the term.
And it matters even more once the company starts talking about dogs with food sensitivities.
“Limited ingredient” – but limited what?
Big Canyon’s Chicken Bites treats contain six listed ingredients:
Dried Multigrains, Chicken, Glycerin, Cranberries, Sweet Potato, Vitamin E. [14]
The company calls them limited-ingredient and describes them as having a “protein-forward approach.” It also says the limited-ingredient formula makes them a good option for many dogs with sensitivities. [14]
I have several problems with that.
First, Dried Multigrains is the first ingredient.
Chicken is second.
The guaranteed analysis is only 10% minimum crude protein. [14]
I don’t think “protein-forward” is a particularly useful description of a product whose first ingredient is an unspecified multigrain ingredient and whose guaranteed minimum protein is 10%.
More importantly, “limited ingredient” isn’t very helpful when one of those limited ingredients may itself contain several unidentified components.
A short ingredient list is useful for a food-sensitive dog when it allows us to know and control what that dog is eating.
“Dried Multigrains” may occupy one spot in an ingredient list. That doesn’t necessarily make it one dietary exposure.
Which grains are in it?
How many?
Has the dog eaten them before?
Without knowing that, counting the number ingredients on the label doesn’t tell us very much.
Big Canyon also says the treats offer simple nutrition without unnecessary additives.
I don’t find “unnecessary” particularly informative either. The recipe contains glycerin presumably because Big Canyon considers it useful for their intended purposes.
Limited ingredients are only particularly useful when they are limited, identified ingredients. Limited unknown ingredients? Not so much.
“When grains are included…”
This part of Big Canyon’s explanation made me stop and reread it.
While discussing the Chicken Bites, the company says that “when grains are included” within its broader philosophy, they support grain-inclusive nutrition and sustainability. [14]
There is no “when” here.
The grains are in this product. They are the first ingredient.
And again, that’s fine, I’m not anti-grain.
But these are treats. They do not need to provide “balanced grain-inclusive nutrition,” and a discussion of sustainability doesn’t answer the basic question of what Dried Multigrains actually contains.
If grains were deliberately chosen as the major ingredient in the treats because the company believes they produce a better product, I’d rather see Big Canyon simply explain that.
I don’t object to the grains – I object to talking around them.
Then there is “pure protein”
This is where the published marketing becomes much harder for me to reconcile with the labels.
Big Canyon’s Venison Bites contain:
Dried Multigrains, Venison, Tallow, Blueberries, Vitamin E.
Dried Multigrains is again first.
The guaranteed analysis lists 8% minimum crude protein. [15]
Yet elsewhere on Big Canyon’s own website, the Bites have been described as “single-ingredient,” “high in pure protein,” and “Pure protein with no fillers.” [16,17]
Those statements do not match the ingredient lists Big Canyon publishes. The products contain five or six listed ingredients, their first ingredient is Dried Multigrains. The venison variety guarantees a minimum of 8% crude protein.
I can’t tell you how those marketing statements were written, reviewed or approved, and I’m not going to speculate about intent. I can compare the statements with the labels, and they don’t fit.
Calling the treats “single-ingredient” is particularly difficult to explain when the company’s own product pages list five or six ingredients.
The ingredient list wins that argument.
And now we’re recommending these products for food sensitivities
Big Canyon’s Venison Bites product page says its five-ingredient, poultry-free treats are “perfect for dogs with chicken sensitivities.” [15]
Its Chicken Bites FAQ says their limited-ingredient formula makes them a good option for many dogs with sensitivities. [14]
If a dog is specifically known to tolerate all of the ingredients in a product, fine.
But Dried Multigrains prevents me from knowing what all of those ingredients actually are.
For a dog with a suspected adverse food reaction, previous dietary exposure matters. Veterinary guidance on diagnostic elimination diets specifically emphasizes selecting ingredients the dog has not eaten before, getting a thorough diet history, and controlling everything the dog consumes. [18,19]
So unidentified grains are not a minor detail here.
If I don’t know what grains are in the treat, I cannot determine whether they are novel to that dog.
The elimination-diet advice concerns me even more
Big Canyon published an article about suspected chicken allergy in dogs that correctly identifies an elimination diet followed by challenge as the standard method of confirming a food allergy. The article tells readers to feed only the trial diet for 8–12 weeks and emphasizes how important it is to avoid other foods. [20]
So far, so good.
The article even tells readers to be suspicious of vague ingredient terminology and, essentially, not to assume when reading labels.
Also good.
Then it recommends Big Canyon Venison Bites during the trial and says they provide a reward without compromising the integrity of the elimination diet. [20]
That’s where I part company with the advice.
Those treats begin with Dried Multigrains, whose component grains are not identified on the ingredient statement. [15]
How can I establish that those grains are appropriate for a novel-ingredient elimination diet if I don’t know what they are?
I can’t determine whether the dog has eaten them before and I can’t compare them with the dog’s dietary history.
And then there is manufacturing cross-contact.
Over-the-counter commercial foods can contain undeclared animal proteins through cross-contact or other sources. Published studies have documented undeclared animal DNA in commercial limited-antigen diets, which is one reason veterinary therapeutic diets or carefully controlled home-prepared diets are commonly preferred for diagnostic trials. [21]
I have not found public information showing that Big Canyon’s Venison Bites are manufactured on dedicated poultry-free equipment, subject to validated allergen-control procedures for diagnostic-diet purposes, or routinely tested for chicken cross-contact.
That does not mean they aren’t, it means I don’t know.
Without that information, I would not tell a client that these treats can be added to a diagnostic elimination diet without compromising its integrity.
That’s more certainty than the publicly available information supports.
Which brings me back to those pet-food scientists
Big Canyon uses its top university pet nutrition scientists as a major part of the company’s credibility.
What role do those scientists actually have?
Did they formulate the kibble and then leave?
Do they advise the company on nutrition more broadly?
Do they review educational material before it is published?
Did they review the articles about food sensitivities and elimination diets?
I genuinely don’t know, because Big Canyon doesn’t name them or explain their ongoing role.
And I think that matters.
The elimination-diet issues described above are not obscure disagreements among nutrition researchers.
Previous dietary exposure, ingredient identification, strict dietary control and possible cross-contact are basic considerations in properly conducted food trials. [18,19,21]
Maybe the unnamed scientists formulated the diets and have little or nothing to do with Big Canyon’s consumer nutrition content. If so, I’d like that distinction to be clearer, because the company repeatedly invokes their scientific expertise as part of the brand.
Or maybe qualified nutrition experts do review this material. In that case, I would like to understand how advice about diagnostic elimination diets was reconciled with recommending a commercial treat containing unidentified grains and with no publicly disclosed information about cross-contact controls.
There may be an explanation, and I’d genuinely like to hear it.
What I won’t do is assume that putting “Created by Top University Pet Nutrition Scientists” on a product makes every nutrition statement published by the company scientifically sound.
So, would I recommend Big Canyon?
At this point, no.
That isn’t because Big Canyon is new.
It isn’t because the food contains grains.
It’s the overall pattern.
The company prominently promotes unnamed university scientists but doesn’t identify them.
It says the food is made in the United States but doesn’t publicly name the manufacturer.
It uses generic ingredients such as Dried Multigrains, Fish Meal and White Fish Meal when I strongly prefer specifically identified ingredients.
It markets treats as limited-ingredient and suitable for sensitivities while their principal ingredient is an unidentified grain mixture.
It has published descriptions such as single-ingredient and pure protein that don’t match its own ingredient statements.
And it recommends its venison treats during a diagnostic elimination diet without publicly providing enough information to determine that all of the ingredients are appropriate for an individual dog’s trial or that cross-contact has been adequately controlled for that purpose.
I can’t tell from the outside whether those inconsistencies come from careless marketing, inadequate technical review, different people within the company not communicating well, or something else.
I don’t really need to know.
I only need to decide whether the information available gives me enough confidence to recommend the brand.
It doesn’t.
There are pet food companies that use specifically named ingredients, identify their nutrition professionals, disclose their manufacturers or production facilities, and answer straightforward technical questions.
I’d rather recommend those.
Big Canyon could change my opinion. Name the nutrition experts and explain their qualifications and role. Identify the manufacturer. Explain exactly what Dried Multigrains contains and whether that composition is fixed. Identify the fish species. Clarify the AAFCO substantiation. Correct the marketing statements that don’t match the labels. And if the products are going to be recommended for diagnostic elimination diets, provide the manufacturing and cross-contact information necessary to support that recommendation.
Until then, Big Canyon is not a brand I would recommend.
The larger lesson applies to plenty of pet foods.
“Science-backed,” “limited ingredient,” “protein-forward,” “high-quality,” “great for sensitivities” and “developed by top scientists” all sound like useful information.
Sometimes they are.
Sometimes they’re just adjectives.
A short ingredient panel isn’t transparent if one of the ingredients is an unidentified mixture.
“Limited ingredient” doesn’t help much if you don’t know what the ingredients are.
“Protein-forward” doesn’t tell you where the protein actually sits in the formula.
“Great for sensitivities” doesn’t tell you which sensitivities or whether the ingredients are appropriate for a particular dog.
And “developed by top university scientists” isn’t a credential I can evaluate until somebody tells me who those scientists are.
Read past the adjectives. Read the label. And pay attention to what a company tells you – and what it doesn’t.
Sources & Further Reading
- Tasty Nutrition, Inc. / Big Canyon trademark records. Shows Tasty Nutrition’s pet-food filings beginning in 2021 and the Big Canyon filings beginning in 2023.
https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/tasty-nutrition-inc-5010175/ - VCA Animal Hospitals – 2019 Impact Report announcement. Identifies Brandon Antin as VCA’s Vice President of Corporate Affairs.
https://vcahospitals.com/press-center/vca-news/impact-report-2019 - Mars – acquisition of VCA. Mars’s 2017 announcement of the approximately $9.1 billion transaction and VCA’s place within Mars Petcare.
https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/press-releases/vca-acquisition - Big Canyon – About page and Adult Chicken product page. Contains the company’s statements about top university pet-food scientists and scientists from a leading veterinary university.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/pages/about
https://bigcanyonpet.com/products/adult-chicken-multigrain-recipe - Big Canyon – FAQ. Contains Big Canyon’s “formulated to meet” AAFCO statement and its public manufacturing information.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/pages/faqs - Vetstreet – Big Canyon Review. Third-party article stating that the foods completed AAFCO feeding trials, in contrast to the formulation wording on Big Canyon’s own FAQ.
https://www.vetstreet.com/food-and-treats/dog-food/big-canyon-review-is-this-premium-kibble - Muenster Pet – Contract Manufacturing. Describes Muenster’s private-label and contract-manufacturing capabilities.
https://mmcprivatelabel.com/ - Muenster Pet – FAQ. Describes kibble production in Muenster, Texas, the separate freeze-dried facility in Denton, and the ruminant-protein restriction at the kibble mill.
https://muensterpet.com/pages/faqs - Big Canyon – Adult Chicken & Multigrain ingredient statement. Includes Dried Multigrains and Fish Meal and provides the formulation information discussed above.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/pages/adult-chicken-multigrain-recipe-ingredients - Muenster Pet – Perfect Balance Ocean Fish. Ingredient statement used for the formulation-pattern comparison.
https://muensterpet.com/products/perfect-balance-ocean-fish-ancient-grains-dog-food - Muenster Pet – Perfect Balance Chicken. Additional formulation comparison.
https://muensterpet.com/products/perfect-balance-chicken-ancient-grains - Kansas State University – 2022 KibbleCon. Lists Muenster’s Mitch Felderhoff among panelists at K-State’s pet-food program event.
https://www.k-state.edu/petfoodcollab/about/previous_events/event_2022.html - AAFCO – Pet Food Labeling Guidance. Explains that pet-food ingredients are to be listed individually and discusses collective ingredient terms.
https://www.aafco.org/consumers/understanding-pet-food/reading-labels/
https://www.aafco.org/resources/startups/ingredients-making-pet-food/ - Big Canyon – Chicken Bites. Ingredient statement, 10% minimum crude protein, limited-ingredient and protein-forward language, and the claim that the treats are a good option for many dogs with sensitivities.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/products/big-canyon-bites-with-chicken-3-5oz-10-99 - Big Canyon – Venison Bites. Shows Dried Multigrains as the first ingredient, five listed ingredients, 8% minimum crude protein, and the claim that the treats are suitable for dogs with chicken sensitivities.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/products/big-canyon-bites-with-venison - Big Canyon – Recipe Guide. Describes the Bites as single-ingredient and high in pure protein despite the published multi-ingredient formulations.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/blogs/news/which-big-canyon-recipe-is-best-for-your-dog-a-complete-guide - Big Canyon – World Cup Energy article. Contains the “Pure protein with no fillers” description of the Bites.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/blogs/news/world-cup-energy-how-to-help-your-dog-play-like-a-champion-1 - VCA Animal Hospitals – Implementing an Elimination-Challenge Diet Trial. Discusses using ingredients a dog has not previously eaten, obtaining a complete diet history, and concerns about cross-contamination in over-the-counter diets.
https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/implementing-an-elimination-challenge-diet-trial-dog - Merck Veterinary Manual – Cutaneous Food Allergy in Animals. Discusses careful selection of novel ingredients, previous exposure, strict dietary control and pitfalls in elimination trials.
https://www.merckvetmanual.com/integumentary-system/food-allergy/cutaneous-food-allergy-in-animals - Big Canyon – Chicken Allergy article. Discusses an 8–12 week elimination trial, tells readers to scrutinize vague labels, and recommends Big Canyon Venison Bites during the trial.
https://bigcanyonpet.com/blogs/news/dog-food-for-chicken-allergy - Published research on undeclared ingredients and cross-contamination in elimination diets. Studies documenting undeclared animal material in some commercial limited-antigen diets.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28247445/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30208880/