What does "good food" really mean?

[Mignarda]

I know not everyone can afford the expensive stuff. Heck, if I had more than one dog, I wouldn't be able to afford to feed the food I am feeding right now.

Is it really that expensive? I feed Dickens a four-star dog food that I think is a very good one indeed, and it costs only $27 for a 20-pound bag, which, at the rate of one cup per day, lasts about ten weeks. That's about 39 cents per day. Granted that's only half of what he'd be getting if I didn't supplement with meats, but even with the addition of a daily ration of three ounces of beef, and two large chicken thighs per week, we're talking around $1.40 per day, or about $42 per month. Feeding the straight kibble at 2 cups per day, with no meat supplements would amount to half that. Who couldn't afford 78 cents per day to feed a dog a better grade of food?

Then, too, feeding your dog the healthiest possible diet is likely to save quite a bit of money in vets' bills!

 

[Tabitha]

Very well said Randi. The differences in the foods are enormous. I often wonder if F-kap wouldn't be healthier today if I had feed him better food in his younger years. But like you said, who knows. He ate Kibbles n' Bits and Ol' Roy for many years (I was discussed with myself when I read the ingredients not long ago), then Iams and Beneful (better but still junk food), now the healthy food. Did you happen to right down the name of the dog food from the second list (just curious)? That sounded good enough for me to eat!

 

[take4roll10]

Is it really that expensive? I feed Dickens a four-star dog food that I think is a very good one indeed, and it costs only $27 for a 20-pound bag, which, at the rate of one cup per day, lasts about ten weeks. That's about 39 cents per day. Granted that's only half of what he'd be getting if I didn't supplement with meats, but even with the addition of a daily ration of three ounces of beef, and two large chicken thighs per week, we're talking around $1.40 per day, or about $42 per month. Feeding the straight kibble at 2 cups per day, with no meat supplements would amount to half that. Who couldn't afford 78 cents per day to feed a dog a better grade of food?

Then, too, feeding your dog the healthiest possible diet is likely to save quite a bit of money in vets' bills!

I feed Stella and Chewy's frozen raw and little Acana kibble. Not including Acana because that lasts a while and is cheap, Stella and chewy costs about $20-$30 a bag (depends on which formula and I rotate every 3 bags). One bag feeds my dog for about 10 days. So it costs about $60-$90 a month to feed my one 15 pound dog. If she was larger or I had 2 dogs, it would be $120-$180 a month. Maybe I could do two dogs. but not 3 dogs, I couldn't afford that much. I would either strictly feed Acana and add a little raw or fresh food a few days a week. When I fed only Acana, a 5 pound bag for $18 lasted 6 weeks. She ate 1/2 a cup a day. I could def feeds 3 or more at that price.

 

[JLSOhio51]

It would seem to me that to boil this conversation down to cheap vs. expensive not only devalues the import of the conversation as a whole, but it is also a bit misleading (at least to some of us). Someone pointed out earlier that there are pet foods that are considered "cheap" that are actually rated higher value nutritionally than some more "expensive" foods. Ann made a valid point earlier when she said that many people who feed the "cheap" brands, also add supplements to their pet's diets. Therefore, you are no longer comparing the results of "cheap" vs. "expensive", but rather the totality of the "cheap" vs. the totality of the "expensive". What this all means to me is this argument (discussion) is far too complicated to reduce to whether or not to feed the cheap stuff vs. the expensive stuff.

When you add to all of that the regulations that determine what may be included in pet foods, even those supposedly (somewhat universally) accepted "expensive" brands aren't all the manufacturers would lead us to believe that they are.

 

[take4roll10]

It would seem to me that to boil this conversation down to cheap vs. expensive not only devalues the import of the conversation as a whole, but it is also a bit misleading (at least to some of us). Someone pointed out earlier that there are pet foods that are considered "cheap" that are actually rated higher value nutritionally than some more "expensive" foods. Ann made a valid point earlier when she said that many people who feed the "cheap" brands, also add supplements to their pet's diets. Therefore, you are no longer comparing the results of "cheap" vs. "expensive", but rather the totality of the "cheap" vs. the totality of the "expensive". What this all means to me is this argument (discussion) is far too complicated to reduce to whether or not to feed the cheap stuff vs. the expensive stuff.

When you add to all of that the regulations that determine what may be included in pet foods, even those supposedly (somewhat universally) accepted "expensive" brands aren't all the manufacturers would lead us to believe that they are.

What is cheap? What is expensive? What is high rated? What is low rated? What is low high quality? What is high quality? Obviously everyone has different qualifications and different assumptions for these labels. What is expensive for one person is cheap to another and vice-versa. If we judged every single word, nit picked and tip toed around every term, we wouldn't be able to have a normal conversation here. I'd like to give our members the benefit of the doubt that they can understand what most people are referring to. And if not, they can certainly ask.

 

[JLSOhio51]

... I'd like to give our members the benefit of the doubt that they can understand what most people are referring to...

I would certainly agree. As such, I would think that even though there might be small quibbles over exactly where the dividing lines are, members wouldn't be confused as to "cheap" or "expensive". Even if every member has a different definition of "cheap" and/or "expensive", I don't think it changes my point, which is that cost centric discussions miss important points.

 

[Ann]

These semantics are exactly why I prefer talking about high-quality and low-quality foods, rather than "cheap" or "expensive."

You also have to consider when comparing price points the amount you feed. Something that frequently goes unnoticed by the consumer is the fact that you have to feed more than twice as much of a lower-grade food with fillers as you do of the premium foods. For instance, most Shelties would require at least 1 1/2 cups a day (or more) of a supermarket food, as opposed to 1/2 cup per day of the quality foods.

When you factor that in, you get more for your money with the premium brands, because they last longer.

 

[JLSOhio51]

These semantics are exactly why I prefer talking about high-quality and low-quality foods, rather than "cheap" or "expensive."

...

I would 100% agree, Ann. The problem as I see it is that in addition to what many of us see as "semantics" it is truly a misapplication of terms. To some, high-quality and low-quality are synonymous with "expensive" and "cheap" (i.e. semantics), but they clearly are not. There is also a presumption that everyone understands what is meant, yet "cost" terms crept into this thread 15 - 20 posts ago when "quality" was clearly the salient point. I felt that the conversation was diverted at that point. Thanks for you input.

 

[Mignarda]

I would 100% agree, Ann. The problem as I see it is that in addition to what many of us see as "semantics" it is truly a misapplication of terms. To some, high-quality and low-quality are synonymous with "expensive" and "cheap" (i.e. semantics), but they clearly are not. There is also a presumption that everyone understands what is meant, yet "cost" terms crept into this thread 15 - 20 posts ago when "quality" was clearly the salient point. I felt that the conversation was diverted at that point. Thanks for you input.

In terms of the very expensive foods, there is, I perceive, a tendency toward overkill. It's like toilet paper. You can only get so much "softness" before the stuff ceases to do what it's meant to do.

 

[The Quahog]

I read an article about a year ago, that stated that dogs now live twice as long as they did in the 1970's.

.

I have always been struck by the lines in Kipling's poem 'The Power Of the Dog'

'When the fourteen years which nature permits
Is closing in asthma or tumors or fits
And the vet's unspoken prescription runs
To lethal chambers and loaded guns'…..

Yes, fourteen years.
And this was written in about 1890. Interesting.