Quote:
Originally Posted by pstinard  I see your point, but my head is still spinning. A and C level foods have been available for decades, though, and if something hasn't been proven by the millions of dogs fed on these foods for their entire lives, perhaps there never will be. It all comes back to feeding what your own dog likes and does best on. If Bella did equally well on Orijen and Ol Roy, wouldn't Ol Roy be the best value, for all intents and purposes, since you can get a huge bag for just a few bucks? (Don't worry, I would never feed Bella Ol Roy--that's just an example.) |
One of the reasons I found a new major was I like things a little more black and white then they are in the field of nutrition. It's a very grey area with so many experts arguing. How do you define health, absence of disease or longevity? Diets just don't make much of a difference compared to other factors, like genetics. The main characteristic that indicated an unhealthy diet was if the diet contained too many calories, proper weight is the most important indicator of overall health. Some scientists believe that testing clone pups would give us better information on nutrition because you could take out some of the genetic component. However, there are many groups that are against this and see it as inhumane.
I don't believe that you can evaluate a food solely on how well you dog does, that one piece of the puzzle, I mean you can see if he's not vomiting, if has excessive gas, or gaining too much weight and if his hair looks healthy, and if he's not itching and has enough energy, but you really can't see how the internal organs are doing and I believe there is a difference between surviving and thriving, and I want to choose a food based upon many factors, but I expect my dogs would do well on a variety of different foods, it's just as they are getting older, I think diet plays an even more important part in there overall health.