Bowowee said:
I don't see anything ridiculous with what I've said.
need a reminder then?
Bowowee said:
I guess you've been dazzled by the magic of marketing and technology.
it's a ridiculous statement since my goal
is to lay open baseless marketing claims for dog food and a huge part of my ongoing research is all about ingredient processing and quality.
you can't look at canned food just from the angle of moisture content. there are many other details that are not obvious without doing some research. yes, kibble is a "better deal" if you are just looking into feeding your dog cheaply, but in almost all other aspects canned food comes out ahead when comparing products of otherwise equal quality level.
* canning food creates a sterile environment, so stabilizers and preservatives are not needed.
* canned foods are predominantly made from fresh, not previously rendered ingredients, so more nutrients are preserved, requiring less artificial supplementation.
* if no rendered material is included, there is a much lower risk of harmful substances added by the supplier being present (e.g. ethoxyquin in fish and fat products) - the manufacturer does not have to declare those on an ingredient label.
* when fresh ingredients are used, there is no need for coloring or flavoring agents, since you don't have an uniform grey mass (like with dry rendered products)
the list goes on, but i don't have the time to discuss it all in minute detail.
claims that dogs are in poor condition and/or overweight are just as true for dogs being fed poor quality kibble as poor quality canned food. vets generally aren't a good source for nutritional information anyway, since in many cases they have taken only very basic courses, often sponsored by the pet food giants like waltham, purina and hill's. you'd want to talk to someone who has done their own research.
fact is that canned foods are often wrongly maligned and are indeed a good way to feed a dog, especially, as i said before, for those folks who want something that is ready to feed.