# According to Back to Basics......



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

Dogs are Omnivores!:twitch:

I like the company but I have a hard time feeding my dog food from a company that considers them Omnivores.

I know all kibble has something besides meat in it, and I always just assumed it was partly for filler and other nutrients the dogs may need. I was just surprised to see it in bold print on the back of the bag.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, they have to say that. Otherwise dry dog food would make no sense, feeding non-meat to a carnivore.

Oh wait....


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 9, 2010)

Meh - while it is kinda surprising, I don't really think much of it. Mainly because Harleigh loves the food and does great on it.


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

Seeing as there are Vets out there saying dogs are omnivores, it makes sense for a dogfood to say it. There's probably people who would buy it simply because it says "the same" as their vet.


----------



## catahoulamom (Sep 23, 2010)

Lol, I was reading the back of one of the bags once and it said something along the lines of "it mimics the natural diet of wolves grazing on sweet field peas" or something like that.


----------



## Makovach (Jan 24, 2012)

All I have to say about people that say dogs are omnivores is this, You can not argue with physical anatomy!


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

They have to justify putting some sort of binder in their kibble though, whether its taters, tapioca, peas, chickpeas, etc. 

I wouldn't take it too personally or whatever. It's still one of the best foods out there IMO, and most closely resembles a raw diet.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

catahoulamom said:


> Lol, I was reading the back of one of the bags once and it said something along the lines of "it mimics the natural diet of wolves grazing on sweet field peas" or something like that.


That made me laugh out loud. I have SUCH a vision in my head right now.


----------



## catahoulamom (Sep 23, 2010)

xellil said:


> That made me laugh out loud. I have SUCH a vision in my head right now.


Lol, I know I was the same when I read it. I know they have to justify having a binder/veggies/whatever in their kibble but I find it funny that companies flat out make up sh*t to make their food look good. 

I think it's a good kibble but I don't really think it's close to a raw diet besides the fact that they add in organ meats (which I think is a good thing). I also don't know how they justify the high price when most of the meat they use is cheaper than flesh (livers and hearts). Either way it's a good food.


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't think it's a bad food at all. I expect something like that from Purina or Pedigree. I guess it surprised me because it is such a good food. Like I said, I know all kibble has veggies and starches in it. I just wasn't expecting a flat out lie. I guess I wanted to see something more to do with the vitamins or other forms of nutrients that non meat ingredients add. I guess its just a more logical argument to make. Then again it is just my opinion.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (Apr 10, 2012)

While I totally agree that dogs ARE carnivores (there really is no question about that!) Dogs have lived with humans for arguably 40 000 years or more, eating what we eat, our garbage, and what they caught on their own. The fact that dogs, unlike cats, can survive off a vegetarian diet (not that they should, or are even that healthy on it) shows that they have evolved somewhat to be able to eat and live off our crap. Dogs ARE scavengers, and evolved from scavenging wolves (wolves today are different and have different eating habits than wolves then did) that were more like coyotes in their eating habits... and anyone living with coyotes and gardens know perfectly well that they like eating veggies. My grandmother had coyotes digging up her carrots, and eating fallen apples on a regular basis.

Again, (I really want to reiterate this) I do agree that dogs are carnivores, but I dont think there's anything wrong with veggies and fruit in their diets. though their diet should be mainly meat, for sure. It's really rather wrong that they put that directly on their bag, I wonder if printing misinformation like that can be construed as false-advertising?


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> While I totally agree that dogs ARE carnivores (there really is no question about that!) Dogs have lived with humans for arguably 40 000 years or more, eating what we eat, our garbage, and what they caught on their own. The fact that dogs, unlike cats, can survive off a vegetarian diet (not that they should, or are even that healthy on it) shows that they have evolved somewhat to be able to eat and live off our crap. Dogs ARE scavengers, and evolved from scavenging wolves (wolves today are different and have different eating habits than wolves then did) that were more like coyotes in their eating habits... and anyone living with coyotes and gardens know perfectly well that they like eating veggies. My grandmother had coyotes digging up her carrots, and eating fallen apples on a regular basis.
> 
> Again, (I really want to reiterate this) I do agree that dogs are carnivores, but I dont think there's anything wrong with veggies and fruit in their diets. though their diet should be mainly meat, for sure. It's really rather wrong that they put that directly on their bag, I wonder if printing misinformation like that can be construed as false-advertising?


Thank you, you that is what I was trying to get at. I have a dog that eats figs off my tree all the time, it doesn't mean he can survive on them alone. 

I think there is so much debate in the canine world over them being carnivore vs omnivore that it wouldn't be considered false advertising. Many other brands promote corn for dogs, at least this is a good meat base food. I just wish they wouldn't call them omnivores.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> While I totally agree that dogs ARE carnivores (there really is no question about that!) Dogs have lived with humans for arguably 40 000 years or more, eating what we eat, our garbage, and what they caught on their own. The fact that dogs, unlike cats, can survive off a vegetarian diet (not that they should, or are even that healthy on it) shows that they have evolved somewhat to be able to eat and live off our crap. Dogs ARE scavengers, and evolved from scavenging wolves (wolves today are different and have different eating habits than wolves then did) that were more like coyotes in their eating habits... and anyone living with coyotes and gardens know perfectly well that they like eating veggies. My grandmother had coyotes digging up her carrots, and eating fallen apples on a regular basis.
> 
> Again, (I really want to reiterate this) I do agree that dogs are carnivores, but I dont think there's anything wrong with veggies and fruit in their diets. though their diet should be mainly meat, for sure. It's really rather wrong that they put that directly on their bag, I wonder if printing misinformation like that can be construed as false-advertising?


Dog food companies are legally allowed to put misleading statements on dog food bags. Alot of people don't know this. It's similar to human food having "natural" on it which means nothing - except with dog food alot more is allowed.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Dogs and wolfs are *not* true carnivores. No person with a minimum of knowledge argues that, not even respected vets or nutritionists who are 100% behind raw feeding. Wolfs and dogs got different metabolic capabilities than true carnivores. It's a scientific fact making them not true carnivores. They are adapted carnivores *of the group carnivora*. This is what confuses many. There are many species in carnivora that are not strict carnivores. The term ominvore is just a loose one that doesn't mean much at the end of the day, at least not scientifically speaking.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Dogs and wolfs are *not* true carnivores. No person with a minimum of knowledge argues that, not even respected vets or nutritionists who are 100% behind raw feeding. Wolfs and dogs got different metabolic capabilities than true carnivores. It's a scientific fact making them not true carnivores. They are adapted carnivores *of the group carnivora*. This is what confuses many. There are many species in carnivora that are not strict carnivores. The term ominvore is just a loose one that doesn't mean much at the end of the day, at least not scientifically speaking.


Dogs only NEED what is in meat, bones, and organs. Sure, they can digest a berry, and they can digest other foods if they are pureed or cooked. That doesn't mean they are meant to eat those things, or would even choose to eat those things given a choice between that and a prey animal.

The thing about the dog food bag is the implication that dogs SHOULD be eating grains, etc. Much of that stuff is filler and doesn't even get digested. The rest of it is processed so much that they have to artificially add back the nutrients that USED to be in the food before it was cooked down. 

It's a total misdirection.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> Dogs only NEED what is in meat, bones, and organs. Sure, they can digest a berry, and they can digest other foods if they are pureed or cooked. That doesn't mean they are meant to eat those things, or would even choose to eat those things given a choice between that and a prey animal.
> 
> The thing about the dog food bag is the implication that dogs SHOULD be eating grains, etc. Much of that stuff is filler and doesn't even get digested. The rest of it is processed so much that they have to artificially add back the nutrients that USED to be in the food before it was cooked down.
> 
> It's a total misdirection.


Agreed. I mean look at us as humans and all the junk we eat. Yes, we stay alive on processed food but are we healthy? Heck no! Diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc. Yes, a dog can stay alive without meat, but will it suffer in the end the same we humans are for eating things taht aren't species-appropriate -- heck yes they will and are. The simple fact that the veggies/fruits have to be broken down and pureed in order for them to gain benefit, shows it's not the natural way they're designed to derive nutrients. Why must we keep altering with that and seeing what MIGHT keep them alive? Shouldn't we be focused on what is BEST for them? Which is clearly mostly meat, little organ/bone. It's sickening what these dog food companies can get away with on their advertising and I don't care how good my dog did on a certain kibble (which I don't even think that's a good statement to say because in the end or more likely the middle of their life, I'm sure the repeated processed foods will catch up with them) if they didn't understand dogs were carnivores... I'd be leery of exactly how much meat is in the food. But then again, does any kibble really have a high meat content?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

i think dry food does have protein in it. I believe protein is one of the few things that isn't destroyed with cooking. It's where that protein comes from that is concerning to me. 

When they put melamine in the dog food it was because it gave a false positive for protein, so the manufacturers could reduce the actual meat way down.

And then you look at the end of the ingredients list, and it's got all the nutrients added artificially that were originally in the ingredient but are no longer there.

So what's the point of the ingredient in the first place? It looks good on the cover of the bag. There's no value in including it in the food.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> And then you look at the end of the ingredients list, and it's got all the nutrients added artificially that were originally in the ingredient but are no longer there.


This! This is exactly what gets to me about kibble. They have to spray on nutrients that were most likely made up in a lab in order for it to have adequate nutritional value. The simple fact they add Taurine to almost all cat food is showing right there that the meat in it isn't sufficient amounts to supply them with their essential vitamins. One reason I recommend Nature's Logic because it is one of the only brands I've seen that doesn't use synthetic vitamins. And to top it off, studies show that only 50% of a synthetic vitamin can be utilized somewhat efficiently.


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

I just want to add a friendly reminder I posted this in the kibble section. It was not my intention to bash kibble. I feed kibble.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, to be fair, starting a thread about a kibble manufacturer stating dogs are omnivores does make it hard not to bash them


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

nlboz said:


> I just want to add a friendly reminder I posted this in the kibble section. It was not my intention to bash kibble. I feed kibble.


Oops, so sorry. i will say (on the original topic) that it does kinda all go back to the misleading marketing that dog food companies are allowed to do, legally. 

But, it does seem to me that kibble feeders should believe their dogs are ominivores, if they are feeding an omnivoric diet - no?


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Dogs and wolfs are *not* true carnivores. No person with a minimum of knowledge argues that, not even respected vets or nutritionists who are 100% behind raw feeding. Wolfs and dogs got different metabolic capabilities than true carnivores. It's a scientific fact making them not true carnivores. They are adapted carnivores *of the group carnivora*. This is what confuses many. There are many species in carnivora that are not strict carnivores. The term ominvore is just a loose one that doesn't mean much at the end of the day, at least not scientifically speaking.


This comes off as misleading - they are carnivores. They are not obligate carnivores like cats are - cats cannot produce taurine and thus need a steady source of meat. This all being said - if you examine the stomach contents of wolves you will find adult wolves do not eat plants and berries. It is wolves are are 2 and under that do so - and mainly female wolves. They also show up in a very small percentage (5% for young female wolves and 2.9% for young male wolves). As to why this is, one can speculate here and there, likely has to do with the food sources they can easily acquire. Basically they are designed to try and get something out of it when there is nothing else out there - but given what is found within their stomachs i can safely say they are carnivores and saying they are not true carnivores is splitting hairs - they are just better evolved for survival then cats and other carnivores are - doesn't make them any less of a meat eater. Check out: Estonian Journal of Ecology, 2009, 58, 2, 141–152. Food habits of the wolf Canis lupus in Latvia based on stomach analyses. 

These companies are trying to insinuate they need vegetables and grains and the like as part of a healthy diet. They do not.


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

xellil said:


> Oops, so sorry. i will say (on the original topic) that it does kinda all go back to the misleading marketing that dog food companies are allowed to do, legally.
> 
> But, it does seem to me that kibble feeders should believe their dogs are ominivores, if they are feeding an omnivoric diet - no?


I understand what you are saying. I wish I would have explained my feeling better in the original post. I agree 100% with the explanation Deaf Dogs gave about kibble. I don't feed it because I believe they are Omnivores, but I also don't feel you Have to feed dogs a Raw diet. I feed it because it works best with our (humans and dogs) lifestyle. 

If this was on a bag of Dog Chow, Pedigree, Beneful I wouldn't have thought twice. But it was on, what is considered great dog food. It was just unexpected and that is what generated the post. IMO I want better dog food companies to have a better justification for adding fillers to their food than that. I realize it has to have filler, but that doesn't have to mean they are Omnivores.


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> Well, to be fair, starting a thread about a kibble manufacturer stating dogs are omnivores does make it hard not to bash them


I laughed when I read this. :smile:

I just didn't want this to turn into a Raw vs Kibble war.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

nlboz said:


> I understand what you are saying. I wish I would have explained my feeling better in the original post. I agree 100% with the explanation Deaf Dogs gave about kibble. I don't feed it because I believe they are Omnivores, but I also don't feel you Have to feed dogs a Raw diet. I feed it because it works best with our (humans and dogs) lifestyle.
> 
> If this was on a bag of Dog Chow, Pedigree, Beneful I wouldn't have thought twice. But it was on, what is considered great dog food. It was just unexpected and that is what generated the post. IMO I want better dog food companies to have a better justification for adding fillers to their food than that. I realize it has to have filler, but that doesn't have to mean they are Omnivores.


Champion dog foods explains that you have to add filler to bind the food together (I think they use potatoes). If it was just meat you could just get dehydrated meat like Honest Kitchen and the like. 
As for all the other filler... like rosemary - I think it's just fluff in general. Not that it hurts the dogs or anything - i just don't think it has much benefit - if any at all. I understand some stuff needs to be added - this is a highly processed product after all. I'm sure the heat treatment and whatnot destroys vitamins and thus other stuff needs to be added to help compensate. 
At least Champion says "dogs are carnivores".


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Omnivore is a vague non scientific term used by pet food companies, bloggers and wolf book authors alike, used way too loosely. Marketing departments and others who want to deliver a point loves anything vague, it's gold to them. Omnivore in this context doesn't mean anything unless it's explained further. They know that 90% will never ever bother with questioning this. And if they ever needed to back up anything that can just point to the fact that dogs are not true carnivores like for example cats are. Viola, they have a connection to something scientific and can therefor get away with using the term "omnivore" You can expand "omnivore" into the ridiculous if you want so that's why I think it's a term just as dumb and meaningless as "grain free"


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

KittyKat said:


> Champion dog foods explains that you have to add filler to bind the food together (I think they use potatoes). If it was just meat you could just get dehydrated meat like Honest Kitchen and the like.
> As for all the other filler... like rosemary - I think it's just fluff in general. Not that it hurts the dogs or anything - i just don't think it has much benefit - if any at all. I understand some stuff needs to be added - this is a highly processed product after all. I'm sure the heat treatment and whatnot destroys vitamins and thus other stuff needs to be added to help compensate.
> At least Champion says "dogs are carnivores".


Exactly. I have feed Champion foods for a while, this was my first bag of Back to Basics. It just surprised me.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Omnivore is a vague non scientific term used by pet food companies, bloggers and wolf book authors alike, used way too loosely. Marketing departments and others who want to deliver a point loves anything vague, it's gold to them. Omnivore in this context doesn't mean anything unless it's explained further. They know that 90% will never ever bother with questioning this. And if they ever needed to back up anything that can just point to the fact that dogs are not true carnivores like for example cats are. Viola, they have a connection to something scientific and can therefor get away with using the term "omnivore" You can expand "omnivore" into the ridiculous if you want so that's why I think it's a term just as dumb and meaningless as "grain free"


Yeah I really dislike that term - it can easily be abused and people are easily mislead by it. Animals eat all sorts of things. Cats get high off catnip and eat grass, doesn't mean it has to be part of their diet. 

I used to like the term grain free... and then i'd find bags of dog food full of rice and other 'goodies'. It's frustrating that anytime you look at a new food you need to do a ton of research. Where is it made? Is the fish free of whatever it is that isn't good? What are the first few named meat ingredients? Are they meat meals? If it just says chicken, knock it down about 5 spots. Okay, now is meat the first ingredient? No? Check a new bag and so on. You can't trust anything on the bag really! 

But that's just how companies operate. It's not like when you buy a box of Twinkies it displays "So full of chemicals it never goes bad!" on it in bold font either - so I can't really jump on these guys when they aren't really doing anything that different. Just at least with us, well most of us, we don't ONLY eat Twinkies. At least I hope not!


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

KittyKat said:


> This comes off as misleading - they are carnivores. They are not obligate carnivores like cats are - cats cannot produce taurine and thus need a steady source of meat.


Imho It's not misleading at all since they are adapted carnivores just like cats are obligate carnivores and I give it all a context. They have adapted metabolic characteristics like the conversion of carotene, tryptophan, cysteine, Linoleic acid and others. This is what some (which is misleading imo) classify as the "omnivore" part. Given the context it is not splitting hairs since many uses the term "carnivore" as if they are unable to process nutrients from plant matter. Dogs, and the wolf, are amazing at using whatever nutrients are available. No one disputes the fact that they live best on large parts of meat and fats. The dispute is in/on processing. At least thats how I see it.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Dogs, and the wolf, are amazing at using whatever nutrients are available.


In their raw form? I was under the impression dogs can't derive nutrients from raw veggies/fruits? If they can't it shows how unnatural giving them said things since dogs don't cook in the wild. And while they may be able to derive nutrients from COOKED veggies/fruits, it doesn't mean it's the correct way of doing it. They're deriving nutrients from spayed on chemicals in a lab but again, not the right way to do it.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

KittyKat said:


> But that's just how companies operate. It's not like when you buy a box of Twinkies it displays "So full of chemicals it never goes bad!" on it in bold font either - so I can't really jump on these guys when they aren't really doing anything that different. Just at least with us, well most of us, we don't ONLY eat Twinkies. At least I hope not!


'

Totally off topic but we visited my son once for Thanksgiving and bought some of those brown and eat rolls that we didn't eat. When we came back to visit six months later they were still on top of his fridge, and we could have browned and eaten them. They looked exactly the same.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> In their raw form? I was under the impression dogs can't derive nutrients from raw veggies/fruits? If they can't it shows how unnatural giving them said things since dogs don't cook in the wild. They have the stomach, the jaw/teeth, and the digestive track of a carnivore. Let's not try to steer away from those main facts. And while they may be able to derive nutrients from COOKED veggies/fruits, it doesn't mean it's the correct way of doing it. They're deriving nutrients from spayed on chemicals in a lab but again, not the right way to do it.


You are correct. As some people have pointed out, they eat berries and I assume they can get some nutrients from them naturally because they are soft and squishy.


----------



## 7766 (Sep 20, 2011)

I have watched my dog pick a fig tree clean. So I know dogs will eat other sources of food besides meat. What he gains from this I have no idea, what I do know is he can't survive off of it. I would like to think he eats them because they are there and he can. I would also like to think if he had the choice between a chicken and a fig he would choose the chicken. Or at least eat it first. ;-) 

I have also seen dogs hungry enough to eat rocks. Just because an animal will eat it, doesn't mean their body will digest it properly and it is a good source of nutrition.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> '
> 
> Totally off topic but we visited my son once for Thanksgiving and bought some of those brown and eat rolls that we didn't eat. When we came back to visit six months later they were still on top of his fridge, and we could have browned and eaten them. They looked exactly the same.


The McDonald's hamburger does the same thing.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Imho It's not misleading at all since they are adapted carnivores just like cats are obligate carnivores and I give it all a context. They have adapted metabolic characteristics like the conversion of carotene, tryptophan, cysteine, Linoleic acid and others. This is what some (which is misleading imo) classify as the "omnivore" part. Given the context it is not splitting hairs since many uses the term "carnivore" as if they are unable to process nutrients from plant matter. Dogs, and the wolf, are amazing at using whatever nutrients are available. No one disputes the fact that they live best on large parts of meat and fats. The dispute is in/on processing. At least thats how I see it.


mmm, but if you think back to what Carnivore actually means - it comes from the Latin carne (meaning flesh) and vorāre (meaning to devour). It really means any animal who's diet consists mainly of animal flesh. I would argue that what an animal is classified by should be determined by their natural diet... aka what is naturally found within their stomachs. 

I would say a Raccoon would be a great example of an omnivore. Bears are an odd one, they often eat more plant matter then animal matter - they really are opportunistic omnivores -yet many people think of them as a carnivore. In fact they are also in the Caniformia sub order along with wolves and dogs. Sadly I don't know a ton about the bears digestive situation - just that it is not well designed for plants, which is why they eat only the young ones and could be responsible for them hibernating all winter. I would suppose they are a grey area - with a digestive system designed more for animal flesh and a diet that contains more plant matter. I would guess this is due to them being rather crappy hunters (no offense bears).


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> In their raw form? I was under the impression dogs can't derive nutrients from raw veggies/fruits? If they can't it shows how unnatural giving them said things since dogs don't cook in the wild. And while they may be able to derive nutrients from COOKED veggies/fruits, it doesn't mean it's the correct way of doing it. They're deriving nutrients from spayed on chemicals in a lab but again, not the right way to do it.


It all depends. Some things will have zero availability while other things like blueberry, some wild peas/legumes etc contains digestible nutrients. And then you have the fiber which is never digested in any case. It's a huge subject.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

DaViking said:


> It all depends. Some things will have zero availability while other things like blueberry, some wild peas etc contains digestible nutrients. And then you have the fiber which is never digested in any case. It's a huge subject.


So clearly the things they're able to crush with their carnivore teeth (soft things) can be of value, maybe, but anything else is going to have to be completely broken down and go into another state for them to derive any value from it. Interesting. I have an image of the dogs out in the wild cooking their veggies and heck, why were at it, let's cook the meat!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> So clearly the things they're able to crush with their carnivore teeth (soft things) can be of value, maybe, but anything else is going to have to be completely broken down and go into another state for them to derive any value from it. Interesting. I have an image of the dogs out in the wild cooking their veggies and heck, why were at it, let's cook the meat!


I'm so senile I can't remember who said it, but it was recently - someone said they saw on a bag of dog food that it was like the dogs were in their natural state, grazing in a field of peas. That just totally cracked me up.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> So clearly the things they're able to crush with their carnivore teeth (soft things) can be of value, maybe, but anything else is going to have to be completely broken down and go into another state for them to derive any value from it. Interesting. I have an image of the dogs out in the wild cooking their veggies and heck, why were at it, let's cook the meat!


mmm, even then they don't eat the stomach contents of what they kill. I think things like berries are full of natural sugar, would be a fast energy boost. Like the study i posted about said - its the young wolves going after this stuff. Perhaps they don't have the skills in killing yet, are lower on the totem poll and get less food or any number of things - and so they go after easy nutrient sources. They are very adaptable. Females seem to eat more as well, perhaps when they have their young hunting becomes an issue, so a close source of berries fills in the gaps.

Yong wolves also had more empty stomachs... so I don't think i'm really off track on that one.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> but anything else is going to have to be completely broken down and go into another state for them to derive any value from it.


Yes, for a lot of ingredients that is correct. Maybe the easiest comparison here is cooked rice vs whole unprocessed rice grains. Cooked rice is highly digestible for dogs, rice not so much. Another one is corn obviously. Don't get me started on corn, I hate it, but for other reasons than many would think.


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

A large percentage of people choose the bag of dog food by price, availability, picture on the bag, word-of-mouth, and maybe by looking at the first few listed ingredients. Words like carnivore or omnivore on the bag literally fly under their radar.

A smaller percentage of us who primarily feed kibble (with maybe a little home-cooking thrown in) analyze the ingredients, the guaranteed analysis and the manufacturer's reputation. We tend to ignore the marketing hype, realizing that is exactly what it is: hype.


----------

