Quote:
Originally posted by K9soul
I think each person should go with what they feel is best for their pets. I really personally do not feel that dog food brand necessarily has a direct impact on a dog's lifespan. I think it can definitely impact things like coat quality, energy levels, arthritic symptoms, etc., but I've never seen nor heard any evidence that showed dogs usually live longer on such and such food.
There are as many debates on what is best for a dog to eat nutritionally as there are about people. With people for instance, you have your vegetarian proponents, your food pyramid proponents, your low-carb proponents, and so on, all with documentation that their way is the most healthy way to eat. In the end, I think like people, dogs are different in what they best tolerate and thrive on, and each person just has to find what they feel their dog does the best on, and that they can afford or get ahold of.
I wouldn't really compare feeding a cheaper brand of dog food to someone smoking. I know you probably weren't really implying that, but smoking is so incredibly destructive to nearly every organ system, and I don't believe less expensive foods are destructive as much as they just may not offer as much benefit.
I suppose in the end, it is a lot like comparing the way we ourselves may eat or how people feed their children. There are many people who would totally disagree as to the best way of eating, but in the end it is something we all have our opinions and beliefs in.
The only thing I really hate to see is when someone reveals what they feed their dog and others begin calling the food "crap" and going on how they would never feed their dog that. I think if I were on the receiving end of that, I would feel accused that I did not care enough about the welfare of my dogs to feed it a "good" food. Not saying that is what is going on here, but that is where I have seen a lot of these discussions end up.
