I don't understand how people assume anything w/ 'organic' slapped on it is best.
Human or dog food, for that matter. I claim they are "overrated" because there is no PROOF that they are actually better. And I would hate to think anyone would slack up on what is best for their dogs just to save money.
I can assure you that I have researched it thoroughly myself and made a decision that
I feel is best for
MY dogs, as I think everyone should.
I didn't post in disagreement with anyone, just to get some actual answers and provoke acutal thought. Generally, people are always quick to jump in with claims that one brand is a lesser quality than another, but they don't really have a clue as to
why--it just happens to be what they were told and believe. It is said that they are made with better ingredients, yet no one can explain what that means.
For example:
* The most common answer is 'the higher quality foods have no empty fillers.' OK, find one that doesn't have any--there aren't any. Not to single anyone out, but someone stated this as a reason earlier, but when asked to explain it more, said the fillers (rice, corn, wheat) add to the protein levels in the food? And again, how do you know there are 'more fillers' if there is nothign to tell you the ratio of fillers in the food?
* This one is made with higher quality foods--Says who? The dog food company? Well, I would hope they would stand by their own products and try to make them appealing to consumers.
* How come you see tomatos, garlic, onion and potatoes on the lists of foods toxic to dogs, yet they are included in most dog foods?
My point is, how many claim to choose one over the other and give a reason without understanding what it even means.
(And if you have the title of that book you mentioned which explains this all so thoroughly, please share the title of it with us.)