Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1  That would certainly be ONE option!!....I know poor food will show up rather quickly in the dogs appearance, vitality, mental and emotional condition, etc.....even stools....junk in, junk out. Kidney function, liver issues, and cardiac issues will follow relatively soon.....clinical feeding trials are realistic and dogs clearly can not stay on a feeding trial the entire life of the dog. Valid clinical feeding trials do last several years, as opposed to several days or weeks or even months. I would much rather these trials be done in a clinical research setting, than throwing dog food out on the general public, then after several years a cluster of pet owners have dogs dying with liver and kidney failure, or allergy issues, skin conditions, poor coats, etc. I do not want to feed any dog food where the manufacturer is using me and my pets as their clinical trial subjects! Let them do the valid research and the feeding trials, then when proven to do and be what it claims to do and be, I will then be happy use it! |
Very true. That's why I would think that feeding trials would be stopped at the first sign of deteriorating health. I believe that's what they do for the all-too-brief AAFCO feeding trials. I think a long term life long study would be more appropriate in terms of trying to prove something more subtle, such as differences in feeding natural vs. synthetic vitamins, or nutritionally complete kibble vs. canned vs. raw vs. home cooked foods.
BTW, this thread has me remembering back to the German Shepherd we had when I was a child. She died of massive organ failure at the age of 10 years and bled out of every orifice, and now I have to wonder whether she was poisoned by a toxic batch of dog food.