Originally Posted by Britster  I do agree now that ingredients come 2nd to me, right after quality control. Me though? I'm still not exactly *comfortable* with feeding a food that has lots of ingredients that I can't pronounce, or things that are unnamed, or any food with more than 1 corn ingredient, more than 1 wheat ingredient, or anything with a bunch of peas. Example: I do like Royal Canin as a company, and I think a lot of dogs do well on it, but the inclusion of the corn gluten meal, corn, white rice, brown rice, wheat, etc all in one formula is a turnoff to me. It also has some pretty high mineral levels. I don't think it's as great as some vets make it out to be and I do think it's over priced.
And while I do believe nutrition as a whole can be/is very complicated, in SOME ways it's almost very simple. The reason, IMO, we as humans have so many obesity issues is simply because of all the food that is available to us. If ALL we had available to us food-wise was 'natural' foods. I have no doubt we'd be healthier as a society.
It's so hard to judge because back then, we also had more problems with disease, so many were dying younger than we do today. I wish there was some definite answer how long dogs lived in the 1700's and 1800's as well. They weren't getting balanced meals, I can tell you that.
I do have a legitimate question - when did dogs start needing these perfectly balanced meals? Obviously, throughout thousands of years, they weren't eating balanced meals, with the proper minerals, proteins, etc and somehow managed to survive. For how long and how healthy I don't know. But I'm just genuinely curious what makes feeding a dog chicken, other meats, and veggies and carbs every day without a supplement make them lack nutrients somehow? |